natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The tax on legal persons is not levied on total profits.
V nasprotju s trditvami belgijskih organov, kadar obdavčitev gospodarskih dejavnosti pristanišč z davkom od dohodkov pravnih oseb za davkoplačevalca pomeni ugodnejšo obdavčitev, kot bi bila obdavčitev za davkom od dohodkov družb (glej oddelek 5.1.2 zgoraj o obstoju gospodarske prednosti), to pomeni davčno vrzel za državo.
For entities subject to the tax on legal persons, tax is levied only on part of the revenue generated by the port activities, namely on the cadastral income of property located in Belgium and on the income and proceeds from investment capital and movable assets [62].
Zato Komisija meni, da ta ukrep pomeni prenos državnih sredstev v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Consequently, the taxable amount for the tax on legal persons does not include the total profits made by the ports, for example, the port charges and fees paid by customers in consideration for services offered by the ports or the fees and rentspaid for the use of port infrastructure.
Ker je obravnavani davčni sistem del belgijske zakonodaje in ga Belgiji ne predpisuje zakonodaja Unije, je pripisljiv državi [66].
Moreover, for the part of this revenue which is subject to the tax on legal persons, the rates are generally lower [63] than the applicable corporate tax rate (33,99 %).
Da bi se ukrep štel za državno pomoč, mora biti selektiven, kar pomeni, da mora dajati prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU [67].
The amount of tax paid for the economic activities is therefore lower than the amount resulting from the application of the corporate tax rules.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [68] presoja materialne selektivnosti ukrepa, ki blaži stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja, kot je davčna oprostitev, vključuje tri faze: najprej je treba opredeliti skupni ali „normalni“ davčni sistem (imenovan „referenčni sistem“), ki velja v zadevni državi članici.
In addition, Belgium did not submit any evidence of a nature to alter this conclusion by the Commission during the cooperation procedure launched on 9 July 2014 or in its comments after the opening of the formal investigation procedure on 8 July 2016.
V drugi fazi treba je ugotoviti, ali zadevni ukrep odstopa od referenčnega sistema, kadar različno obravnava gospodarske subjekte, ki so z vidika cilja tega referenčnega davčnega sistema v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
It did not challenge the comments presented by the Dutch ports either, according to which the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent have a real tax rate well below the corporate tax rate in Belgium (33,99 %).
Če je tako, je ukrep a priori selektiven.
It is not possible either to subscribe to the arguments of the Flemish Port Commission, according to which, essentially, the advantage resulting from the corporate tax exemption is designed only to compensate for the increasing financing, by the port authorities, of non-economic infrastructure outside their remit.
V tretji fazi je treba ugotoviti, ali je ukrep odstopanja utemeljen z naravo ali splošno shemo – z drugimi besedami, notranjo logiko – referenčnega davčnega sistema [69].
This is because there is no provision of national law guaranteeing that the amount of the advantage is limited to the net cost of such non-economic infrastructures [64].
Kar zadeva tretjo fazo, mora država članica dokazati, da različna davčna obravnava izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel njenega davčnega sistema [70].
The exemption from corporate tax, the amount of which is proportional to the profit made, therefore leads to an advantage disproportionate to any cost of financing non-economic infrastructures.
V postopku so belgijski organi zaporedno zagovarjali dve tezi.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the ports at issue benefit from an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU which corresponds to the difference between the corporate tax that the ports should have paid for their economic activities and the proportion of the tax on legal persons which can be attributed to these economic activities.
V odgovorih na vprašalnik, ki so ga 3. julija 2013 poslale službe Komisije, so belgijski organi najprej navedli, da je člen 180(2) CIR pravna podlaga za oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb za pristanišča.
STATE RESOURCES AND IMPUTABILITY TO THE STATE
Nato pa so v svojih pripombah z dne 19. decembra 2016 menili, da pristanišča niso obdavčena z davkom od dohodkov družb preprosto na podlagi uporabe splošnih pravil CIR v členih 1 in 2 CIR, ker pristanišča niso „družbe“ v smislu člena 2 CIR.
Pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, only measures granted by Member States or through State resources are considered as State aid.
Pojem državna pomoč je objektiven pojem in upoštevati je treba samo učinke ukrepa.
It is settled case-law that waiving revenues that would – in principle – otherwise have been paid to the State constitutes a transfer of State resources [65].
Ni sporno, da belgijska pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, vendar je podlaga za to neplačevanje davka od dohodkov družb po navedbah belgijskih organov člen 180(2) CIR ali pa člena 1 in 2 CIR.
Contrary to the arguments put forward by the Belgian authorities, since the taxation of the economic activities of the ports in the form of the tax on legal persons leads to taxation which is more favourable to the taxpayer than taxation in the form of corporate tax would have been (see section 5.1.2 above concerning the existence of an economic advantage), it gives rise to a shortfall in tax revenue for the State.
Presoja selektivnosti, če sta pravna podlaga za to, da belgijska pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, člena 1 in 2 CIR
Consequently, the Commission considers that this measure constitutes a transfer of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Belgijski organi v svojih pripombah z dne 19. decembra 2016 trdijo, da člen 180(2) CIR nima pravnega pomena in je samo deklarativen.
In addition, since the tax system at issue comes under Belgian law and is not imposed on Belgium by Union legislation, it is imputable to the State [66].
Če bi ga odpravili, se položaj pristanišč v zvezi z davkom od dohodkov družb ne bi v ničemer spremenil.
To be considered State aid, a measure must be selective, in the sense that it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU [67].
Po navedbah belgijskih organov bi bila pristanišča oproščena davka od dohodkov družb na podlagi členov 1 in 2 CIR ter splošnih meril belgijskega davčnega sistema.
According to settled case-law [68], the assessment of the material selectivity of a measure mitigating the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking, such as a tax exemption, consists of three steps.
Belgijski organi namreč trdijo, da pristanišča niso „družbe“ v smislu členov 1 in 2 CIR.
First, it is necessary to identify the common or ‘normal’ tax regime (the ‘reference system’) applicable in the Member State concerned.
V tem okviru naj bi referenčni sistem obsegal člena 1 in 2 CIR, ki določata, da so „družbe“ zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, pravne osebe rezidenti, ki niso družbe, pa so zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
Second, it is necessary to determine whether the measure in question derogates from the reference system by differentiating between economic operators which, in the light of the objective pursued by the reference tax regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Ker po mnenju belgijskih organov pristanišča niso „družbe“, nujno spadajo na področje uporabe davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
If this is the case, the measure would be deemed prima facie selective.
Člen 180(2) CIR, ki po mnenju belgijskih organov samo navaja ugotovitve, ki izhajajo iz splošnih pravil iz členov 1 in 2, naj torej ne bi odstopal od referenčnega sistema in naj bi bil celo njegov sestavni del.
As a third step, it is necessary to establish whether the derogating measure is justified by the nature or general scheme – in other words, the intrinsic logic – of the reference tax system [69].
Ker naj pristanišča ne bila „družbe“, naj bi se pravila o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb štela tudi za ožji referenčni sistem.
As regards this third step, the Member State must demonstrate that the differential tax treatment results directly from the basic or guiding principles of its tax system [70].
Ta razlaga torej v bistvu temelji na predpostavki, da narava dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo pristanišča, nujno izključuje možnost, da bi se lahko ta štela za „družbe“ za namene davka od dohodkov (pravnih oseb rezidentov), če so „podjetja“ v smislu člena 107 PDEU, kot je ugotovljeno zgoraj.
In the course of the procedure, the Belgian authorities have defended two lines of argument in turn.
Ne pripombe Belgije ne pripombe tretjih oseb ne prepričajo, da je ta predpostavka utemeljena.
In their replies to the questionnaire sent on 3 July 2013 by the Commission, the Belgian authorities first pointed out that Article 180(2) of the CIR was the legal basis for the exemption from corporate tax in favour of the ports.
Komisija nasprotno meni, da so pristanišča načeloma „družbe“ za namene davka od dohodkov zaradi bistva njihovih dejavnosti in zato, ker opravljajo take gospodarske dejavnosti, zaradi katerih se lahko štejejo za „podjetja“ v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
However, they then argued, in their comments dated 19 December 2016, that it was not merely as a result of applying the general rules of the CIR provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR that the ports were not subject to corporate tax, since ports were not ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR.
Poleg tega nobena določba nacionalnega prava ne postavlja pod vprašaj te opredelitve družb.
State aid is an objective concept and only the effects of the measure must be taken into account.
Komisija namreč ugotavlja, da je predpostavka, ki jo pri svojem utemeljevanju uporabljajo belgijski organi, v nasprotju z uradnimi opombami v CIR, z drugimi notranjimi besedili in z uradnimi stališči belgijske vlade.
The fact that the Belgian ports do not pay corporate tax is not contested, but the basis for this absence of payment of corporate tax, according to the Belgian authorities, can be either Article 180(2) of the CIR or Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR.
Tako je v uradni opombi v CIR navedeno, da bi se morale pravne osebe, ki so „brezpogojno“ izključene iz plačevanja davka od dohodkov družb (med drugim pristanišča v skladu s členom 180(2) CIR), „načeloma šteti za zavezance za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb“ [71].
Assessment of selectivity if Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR constitute the legal basis for the non-payment of corporate tax by the Belgian ports
Tudi zaradi svoje pravne oblike (in značilnosti, ki so na splošno povezane s to pravno obliko) bi morala biti tudi večina pristanišč, naštetih v členu 180(2) CIR – delniške družbe (SA), družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo (SPRL) ali avtonomne komunalne službe –, načeloma zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb [72].
In their comments dated 19 December 2016, the Belgian authorities maintain that Article 180(2) of the CIR has no legal implications and is purely declarative.
Flamski pristaniški odlok z dne 2. marca 1999 sam vsebuje navedbe glede industrijske [73] in/ali trgovinske [74] narave pristaniških dejavnosti in torej glede njihove opredelitve kot „družb“ v smislu člena 2 CIR, zaradi česar bi bilo treba zanje plačevati davek od dohodkov družb.
Deleting it would not in any way alter the situation of the ports in relation to corporate tax.
Prav tako je belgijska vlada sama pred belgijskim ustavnim sodiščem menila, da so pristanišča, med drugimi družbami in pravnimi osebami iz členov 180 in 220(2) CIR, „dejansko pravne osebe, ki upravljajo podjetje ali se ukvarjajo s pridobitnimi dejavnostmi v smislu člena 2 CIR“ [75].
According to the Belgian authorities, the ports are exempt from corporate tax pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR and the general criteria of the Belgian tax system.
Pred belgijsko poslansko zbornico je podpredsednik vlade in minister za finance in zunanjo trgovino prav tako menil, da so belgijska pristanišča javna podjetja, ki bi bila brez brezpogojne oprostitve iz člena 180 CIR zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb v skladu s členi 1, 2 in 179 CIR [76].
The Belgian authorities maintain that the ports are not ‘companies’ within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR.
Pristanišča niso naravno in neposredno zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, temveč so za njegovo plačilo zavezana samo zato, ker so s členom 180(2) CIR posebej oproščena davka od dohodkov družb, tudi v skladu z besedilom člena 220(2) CIR, kar je v nasprotju z razlago belgijskih organov, da pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, ker so naravno zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb kot pravne osebe rezidenti, ki niso „družbe“.
In this scenario, the reference system would be constituted by Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR, which provide that ‘companies’ are subject to corporate tax, whereas resident legal persons other than companies are subject to the tax on legal persons.
Komisija se torej ne strinja, da pristanišča ne bi bila zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb v skladu s splošnimi merili iz členov 1 in 2 CIR, tudi če bi bil člen 180(2) odpravljen.
According to the Belgian authorities, since ports are not ‘companies’, they would necessarily be subject to the tax on legal persons.
Glede na elemente, navedene v prejšnji uvodni izjavi, Komisija nasprotno meni, da bi morala biti v skladu s splošnimi pravili belgijskega notranjega prava pristanišča, ki so „družbe“ v smislu člena 2 CIR, zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, če ne bi bila tega davka formalno in brezpogojno oproščena na podlagi člena 180(2) CIR.
Article 180(2) of the CIR, which, according to the Belgian authorities, merely draws the consequences from the general rules set out in Articles 1 and 2, would therefore not constitute a derogation to the reference system and would even form an integral part of it.
Iz istih razlogov se Komisija ne strinja, da so pravila o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb referenčni sistem za obdavčitev pristanišč.
In so far as ports are not ‘companies’, the rules relating to the tax on legal persons could also be considered to be a narrower reference system.
Belgijski organi in nekatere zainteresirane strani v svojih pripombah trdijo, da oprostitev pristanišč plačevanja davka od dohodkov družb izhaja – še širše kot iz splošnih pravil CIR (člena 1 in 2) – iz drugih splošnih pravil notranjega prava (splošno načelo prava, pravilo iz sodne prakse, da javne storitve, naloge in blago niso obdavčeni, če tega zakon ne določa izrecno, ter celo belgijska ustava).
This interpretation is therefore based essentially on the assumption that the nature of the activities carried out by the ports would necessarily preclude the possibility of their classification as ‘companies’ for the purposes of the taxation of income (of resident legal persons), whereas they constitute ‘undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, as established above.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija meni, da bi bila ob običajni uporabi splošnih pravil belgijskega prava pristanišča zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb zaradi dohodkov iz svojih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
Neither the observations made by Belgium, nor those of the third parties, provide any convincing evidence to validate this assumption.
Poleg tega bi, tudi če bi, v nasprotju s tem, kar je dokazala Komisija, obravnavana nacionalna pravila – ali njihova razlaga s strani uprave – lahko pomenila, da belgijska pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, ta pravila pomenila diskriminacijo med „podjetji“ z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi v smislu člena 107 PDEU (glej oddelek 5.1.1 zgoraj).
The Commission considers, on the contrary, that the ports are in principle ‘companies’ for the purposes of taxation of income as regards the bulk of their activities and that they carry out economic activities of a nature to classify them as ‘undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Tako kot člen 180(2) CIR v zgoraj predstavljeni analizi Komisije, bi bila ta pravila ali belgijski sistem obdavčitve dohodkov v celoti vir prednosti, odobrenih določenim „podjetjem“, in sicer pristaniščem, čeprav so ta podjetja, kar zadeva dobiček iz „gospodarskih dejavnosti“, v primerljivem položaju z drugimi podjetji (pravnimi osebami rezidenti), ki so zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb glede na cilj davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb rezidentov, ki je obdavčitev dobička.
Nor is this classification as companies called into question by any provision of national law.
Komisija meni, da za pristanišča ne veljajo „posebna načela delovanja, ki jih jasno razlikujejo od drugih gospodarskih subjektov,“ zavezanih za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb [77].
The Commission notes that the assumption on which the Belgian authorities base their reasoning is in contradiction with the official comments on the CIR, with other domestic texts and with official positions adopted by the Belgian Government.
Dejstvo, da pristanišča nimajo pridobitnega namena [78], ne zadostuje, da bi šteli, da so v drugačnem položaju kot drugi gospodarski subjekti, zavezani za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb.
The official comments on the CIR state that legal persons who are ‘unconditionally’ excluded from corporate tax (notably the ports pursuant to Article 180(2) of the CIR) should ‘in principle be regarded as taxpayers subject to corporate tax’ [71].
V takem primeru bi bil belgijski sistem sam selektiven [79].
Also in view of their legal form (and the characteristics generally associated with this legal form), the majority of the ports listed in Article 180(2) of the CIR – which are public limited companies (SA), private limited companies (SPRL) or autonomous municipal authorities – should also be subject in principle to corporate tax [72].
Tudi če sta pravna podlaga za to, da belgijska pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, člena 1 in 2 CIR, bi bilo to neplačevanje selektivni ukrep prima facie kar zadeva gospodarske dejavnosti pristanišč.
Second, the Flemish Port Decree of 2 March 1999 itself contains indications concerning the industrial [73] and/or commercial nature [74] of the port activities and therefore their classification as ‘company’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR, the consequence of which should be that they are subject to corporate tax.
Presoja selektivnosti, če je pravna podlaga za to, da belgijska pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, člen 180(2) CIR
Likewise, the Belgian Government itself argued, before the Belgian Constitutional Court, that the ports, among other companies and legal persons referred to in Articles 180 and 220(2) of the CIR, are ‘in fact legal persons who engage in a business or transactions of a profit-making nature within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR’ [75].
Kot izhaja iz zgornjega razlogovanja, Komisija meni, da je člen 180(2) CIR edina pravna podlaga za to, da belgijska pristanišča ne plačujejo davka od dohodkov družb, in da bi pristanišča, če take določbe ne bi bilo, plačevala davek od dohodkov družb, tako kot vse druge družbe ali podjetja, ki z gospodarsko dejavnostjo ustvarjajo obdavčljive dohodke.
Before the Lower House of the Belgian Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and Foreign Trade also stated that the Belgian ports were public undertakings which, in the absence of the unconditional exemption provided for in Article 180 of the CIR, would be subject to corporate tax pursuant to Articles 1, 2 and 179 of the CIR [76].
Referenčni sistem in odstopanje od referenčnega sistema
Finally, the ports are not subject to the tax on legal persons naturally and directly, but only because they are specifically exempted from corporate tax by Article 180(2) of the CIR, according to the actual wording of Article 220(2) of the CIR, which contradicts the Belgian authorities' interpretation that the ports do not pay corporate tax because they are naturally subject to the tax on legal persons, as resident legal persons other than ‘companies’.
Komisija meni, da so v tem primeru referenčni sistem splošna davčna pravila, ki izhajajo iz členov 1 in 2 CIR.
Therefore, the Commission does not concur with the position that, even if Article 180(2) were deleted, the ports would not be subject to corporate tax under the general criteria provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR.
Člen 1 CIR za pravne osebe rezidente v Belgiji vzpostavlja dvojni sistem obdavčitve dohodkov: „družbe“ zavezuje za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, „pravne osebe, ki niso družbe“, pa davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
In the light of the references cited in the previous recital, the Commission considers, on the contrary, that, pursuant to the general rules of Belgian national law, the ports, which are ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR, should be subject to corporate tax, in the absence of formal and unconditional exemption from this tax under Article 180(2) of the CIR.
Člen 2 CIR vsebuje merila za opredelitev „družb“ in torej za določitev pravnih oseb, ki so zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, in, z izločitvijo, tistih, od dohodkov katerih se plačuje davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
For the same reasons, the Commission disputes that the rules relating to the tax on legal persons constitute the reference system for the taxation of the ports.
Člen 179 potrjuje, da so zavezanci za davek od dohodkov družb družbe rezidentke.
In their comments, the Belgian authorities and certain interested parties maintain that the exemption from corporate tax for the ports is inferred, quite apart from the general rules of the CIR (Articles 1 and 2), from other general rules of national law (a general principle of law, a rule derived from case-law according to which public services, tasks and goods are not taxed unless explicitly provided for by law, or even by the Belgian Constitution itself).
Člen 180(2) CIR pomeni odstopanje od teh splošnih davčnih pravil.
In the light of the references cited above, the Commission considers that the normal application of the general rules of Belgian law would result in the ports being subject to corporate tax with respect to the income from their economic activities.
Pristanišča namreč brezpogojno oprošča davka od dohodkov družb, ne da bi bila uporabljena splošna merila za delitev na davek od dohodkov družb in davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb, opredeljena v členih 1 in 2, tj. ne da bi bila upoštevana (ne)opredelitev navedenih pristanišč kot „družbe“ [80].
Incidentally, even if, contrary to what the Commission has just shown, the national rules in question – or their interpretation by the administration – were such as to result in the non-payment of corporate tax by Belgian ports, these rules would introduce discrimination between ‘undertakings’ engaging in economic activities within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU (see section 5.1.1. above).
Če so pristanišča zaradi razlogov iz uvodne izjave 86 „družbe“ v smislu člena 1 CIR, se lahko referenčni sistem za obdavčitev dohodkov pristanišč opredeli tudi ožje, kot celota pravil o davku od dohodka družb, in sicer členov 1 in 179 CIR, ki določata, da so „družbe“ rezidentke zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, opredeljenem kot „davek od celotnega dohodka“.
Just as in the case of Article 180(2), in the analysis set out below by the Commission, these rules, or the Belgian income tax regime as a whole, would therefore be the source of advantages granted to certain ‘undertakings’, namely the ports, despite the fact that these undertakings, with regard to the profits generated from ‘economic activities’, are in a comparable situation to other undertakings subject to corporate tax (resident legal persons) from the point of view of the objective of taxation of the income of resident legal persons – which is to tax profits.
Glede na ta referenčni sistem člen 180(2) CIR izrecno pomeni odstopanje (to je njegov namen), saj pristanišča izključuje iz področja uporabe člena 179 in iz davka od dohodkov družb, čeprav so v skladu s členom 220(2) CIR zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.