natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That royalty payment, however, is comparable to the royalty paid by the Shops to Starbucks Coffee BV for the exploitation of the Starbucks' brand IP on the market, since all three companies sell products to final consumers.
V takšnih primerih bi davčni organi morali analizirati davčno osnovo na podlagi popravljene strukture, ki bi bila določena z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
The master and manufacturing and distribution agreements between the three companies and Starbucks, which concern the manufacturing process, do not provide for a royalty for the Starbucks IP.
Informacije, ki jih je predložilo podjetje Starbucks, po katerih je bilo podjetje Alki LP dodano v strukturo zaradi davčnih razlogov [177], potrjujejo pomisleke Komisije glede gospodarske racionalnosti te strukture.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that SMBV outsources the production of [a trademark registered coffee product] and soluble coffee to third parties, in particular, [unaffiliated manufacturing company 1].
Petič, Komisija sicer sprejema trditev Nizozemske in podjetja Starbucks, da so nekatera prodajna tveganja podjetja SMBV ublažena s sporazumi s trgovinami, toda to nima pomena v razmerju podjetja SMBV s podjetjem Alki LP.
Although Starbucks' [trademark registered coffee product] product is a brand-protected product, [unaffiliated manufacturing company 1] does not pay any royalties to SMBV or any other Starbucks company for the blend and other production information.
V vsakem primeru glede na omejen položaj podjetja SMBV v pogajanjih z nasprotnimi strankami glede komercialnih pogojev in cen, Komisija sprejema, da sistem napovedi s strani trgovin zmanjšuje poslovno negotovost za SMBV [178].
Finally, for the purposes of assessing whether SMBV pays an arm's-length remuneration to Alki LP for the roasting IP, the arrangement between Alki LP with SMBV can also be compared to arrangements between Starbucks' competitors with third party roasters.
Vendar pa se tveganja proizvodnega podjetja ne nanašajo samo na tveganja v zvezi z zalogami, temveč predvsem na proizvodnjo zmogljivost.
For example, in response to the MIT request regarding arm's-length commercial conditions between unrelated parties in which a company is entrusted with the function of roasting green coffee beans, Melitta explained that when outsourcing the roasting of coffee to a third party it does not perceive royalties, although its puts its roasting curves at the disposal of the third party [153].
Niti Nizozemska niti Starbucks pa nista ugotovila, da so bila tveganja zaradi nihanja povpraševanja glede na izkoriščanje proizvodne zmogljivosti s temi pogodbenimi dogovori popolnoma izničena.
According to the submission of Company Y, which performs a roasting activity through a group company designated as a toll manufacturer, its in-house roasting company also does not pay any royalty to the group either for the IP or the know-how used in the roasting process [154].
Natančneje, zlasti pogodbe z nepovezanimi proizvajalci, [nepovezano proizvodno podjetje 1] niso popolnoma prilagojene za morebitno spremembo povpraševanja.
The same is also true of Dallmayr, which indicated that it considers the payment of a royalty by a company providing roasting as unusual, since it would rather expect the customers to pay the roaster, not the other way around [155].
Šestič, pogodbeni dogovor, ki ga navaja Nizozemska, po katerem SCTC zagotavlja kakovost dobavljenih surovih kavnih zrn, prav tako nima pomena za razmerje med podjetjema SMBV in Alki LP.
It follows that, since in the manufacturing agreements Starbucks concluded with third parties, several of which existed at the time the SMBV APA request was being considered by the Dutch tax administration, no royalty is required for the use of the roasting IP, the Commission considers that a transfer pricing analysis of the arm's-length value of the royalty paid by SMBV to Alki LP for roasting IP leads to the conclusion that no royalty should be due for that IP in that specific relationship.
V vsakem primeru gre za standardni poslovni dogovor, ki ne zmanjšuje tveganja podjetja SMBV v primerjavi z normalnimi tržnimi pogoji.
This conclusion also follows from a comparison with arrangements between Starbucks' competitors with third party roasters.
Skratka, Komisija zavrača trditev, da se izvaja kakršen koli učinkovit prenos tveganja od podjetja SMBV do podjetja Alki LP s pogodbenimi dogovori.
SMBV does not capture the value of the roasting IP in its relationship with Alki LP
Zato kakršen koli element licenčnine, ki bi omogočil povračilo za prenos podjetniškega tveganja, ni upravičen.
Whereas roasting know-how and curves can have a value, in the specific relationship between Alki LP and SMBV that value is not captured by the roaster.
Višine plačila licenčnine ne upravičujejo zneski, ki jih Alki LP plačuje podjetju Starbucks US za tehnologijo v okviru sporazuma o delitvi stroškov
That is because the importance of the roasting know-how and curves lies, in the case of the Starbucks structure, in ensuring a consistent taste associated with the brand and individual products.
Starbucks nadalje tudi očitno sodi, da je licenčnina, ki jo SMBV plačuje podjetju Alki LP, upravičena, ker Alki LP plačuje enake zneske podjetju Starbucks za tehnologijo praženja kave.
Accordingly, the value of Starbucks' roasting know-how and curves is only exploited when Starbucks products are sold under the Starbucks brand by the Shops.
Zato Komisija že od začetka opozarja, da sporazum SMBV APA ne zadeva razmerja med podjetjema Alki LP in Starbucks US, temveč razmerja med podjetjema SMBV in Alki LP.
On their own, the roasting know-how and curves do not generate value for the roaster on an on-going basis if they cannot be exploited on the market.
Zato je za oceno, ali je analiza določanja transfernih cen transakcij med tema subjektoma določena v skladu z metodologijo, ki daje zanesljiv približek tržnega izida v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, pomembna samo vrednost teh transakcij, kot jo je določil davčni svetovalec podjetja Starbucks, ne pa vrednost plačil zunaj tega razmerja.
That conclusion is supported by the submission of Starbucks, according to which licence agreements in which the IP licence merely serves to enable third parties to produce in accordance with Starbucks' specification and to protect Starbucks' IP rights, but where third parties do not exploit the intangibles on the market, are not associated with any royalty payments by those third parties to Starbucks [156].
Sicer pa Komisija ne oporeka, da podjetje Alki LP plačuje podjetju Starbucks pomembne vsote, opredeljene kot stalna licenčnina“ [179].
In addition, in the case of SMBV, the roasting know-how and curves appear to constitute a technical specification according to which the roasting should proceed due to a preference or a choice of the purchasing company.
Vendar opredelitve tega plačila v okviru sporazuma CSA kot povračila za tehnologijo praženja ni mogoče potrditi zaradi načina, na katerega so plačila strukturirana v skladu s sporazumom SCA.
Roasting curves are described by Starbucks in the transfer pricing report as being dictated to SMBV.
Prvič, plačila podjetja Alki LP podjetju Starbucks US se v večji meri financirajo z dohodkom od licenčnine, ki mu jo za znamko plačuje podjetje Starbucks Coffee BV, kot pa od licenčnine, ki jo prejema od podjetja SMBV [180].
They allow SMBV and the third parties, with whom roasting agreements and manufacturing and supply agreements have been concluded, to meet the requirements of Starbucks.
Drugič, plačila podjetja Alki LP podjetju Starbucks USA v okviru sporazuma CSA niso videti v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
Roasting preferences are imposed on manufacturers, for example through the roasting standards requirements and quality assurance standards.
Skratka, trditev podjetja Starbucks, da plačila v okviru sporazuma CSA upravičujejo plačila licenčnine med podjetjema SMBV in Alki LP kot tržno utemeljena, je treba zavrniti.
Such specifications are part of each roasting or manufacturing and supply agreement.
Sklepna ugotovitev o tržni naravi plačila licenčnin
In this regard, the Roasting Agreement indicates that SMBV must adopt roasting processes provided by Alki LP and employ proper equipment, machinery and production methods to ensure that the products meet the product specifications prescribed by Alki LP [157].
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija ocenjuje, da primerjava primerljivih nepovezanih transakcij, zlasti dogovori o licenčnini v več sporazumih o praženju ter proizvodnji in distribuciji, ki jih je podjetje Starbucks sklenilo s tretjimi stranmi, kaže, da bi morala biti tržno utemeljena vrednost licenčnine, ki jo je podjetje SMBV plačalo podjetju Alki LP za pravice uporabe IL v zvezi s praženjem, enaka nič, torej da za te pravice IL v tem posebnem razmerju ne bi smelo biti licenčnine, saj SMBV od uporabe pravic IL v zvezi s praženjem, za katere je pridobil licenco od podjetja Alki LP, nima nobene koristi.
SMBV does not seem to derive any benefit from the use of the product specification in that relationship.
Glede na ta sklep te licenčnine ni treba oceniti.
The fact that the specifications laid down by Alki LP regarding the roasting process and, in particular, the roasting curves allow SMBV to roast coffee that is sold under the Starbucks brand does not bring any benefit to SMBV in terms of increased sales or sales price, considering that SMBV does not, in principle, sell its production to final customers which value the Starbucks brand.
Sicer pa bi morali biti računovodski dobički podjetja SMBV, brez odbitka plačil licenčnine za IL v zvezi s praženjem podjetju Alki LP iz teh dobičkov, izhodišče za določanje davčne obveznosti podjetja SMBV na Nizozemskem.
SMBV sells virtually all its production to Starbucks franchised Shops, which all pay a royalty to the group for exploiting the Starbucks IP on the market, representing a value for their distribution business.
S tem bi bilo zagotovljeno, da obdavčljivi dobički podjetja SMBV ustrezajo ravni, ki jo dosegajo neintegrirana podjetja, katerih davčna obveznost je določena z dobički, ki jih ustvarijo v tržnih pogojih.
SMBV does not exploit the roasting IP directly on the market; the Shops are the interface with final customers who value the consistent taste associated with the Starbucks brand.
Z drugimi besedami, neobdavčeni dobiček, plačan kot licenčnina s strani podjetja SMBV podjetju Alki LP za pravice IL v zvezi s praženjem, bi moral biti v celoti obdavčljiv na Nizozemskem.
Finally, based on the financial information provided in Table 2 and Table 8, Figure 3 presents SMBV's profit margin on its coffee roasting activities, which is obtained by subtracting the price paid by SMBV to SCTC for green coffee beans from the revenues of roasted coffee recorded under the description ‘REV PACKAGED COFFEE’ for each year [158].
Zato je metodologija, sprejeta v sporazumu SMBV APA za določitev višine tega plačila, na podlagi katere se ves dobiček, ki ga ustvari SMBV v višini več kot [9–12] % operativnih stroškov, prenese na podjetje Alki LP [181], razlikuje od metodologije, ki privede do zanesljivega približka tržno utemeljenega izida v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
Figure 3
Ker uporaba te metodologije prinaša manjše davčne obveznosti podjetja SMBV okviru splošnega nizozemskega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v primerjavi z neintegriranimi podjetji, katerih obdavčljivi dobiček je odvisen od trga, je treba za sporazum APA, ki sprejema to metodologijo, šteti, da daje podjetju SMBV selektivno prednost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Losses generated from SMBV's roasting activities since 2010
Tržna narava cen, ki jih podjetje SCTC zaračunava podjetju SMBV za surova kavna zrna
(revenues and purchase price of coffee in EUR)
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 272, sta opredelitev in analiza povezanih ali nepovezanih transakcij podjetja SMBV nujen prvi korak pri ocenjevanju tržne narave komercialnih pogojev, ki veljajo med povezanimi stranmi za namene določanja transfernih cen.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 purchase value from Swiss entity SCTC revenue from roasted coffee sold to shops
V uvodni izjavi 116 sklepa o začetku postopka je Komisija pojasnila, da bi bile cene, zaračunane za surova kavna zrna, če bi bila plačila licenčnine ocenjena z uporabo neposredne metode določanja transfernih cen, kot je CUP, z obveznostjo povezana transakcija, ki jo je bilo treba oceniti za namene določanja transfernih cen; glede cene, po kateri je podjetja SCTC zaračunavalo surova kavna zrna podjetju SMBV, pa bi bilo treba ugotoviti, ali njena raven, kot se odraža v izkazu poslovnega izida podjetja SMBV, ni bila pretirana in tako zmanjševala obdavčljivi dobiček podjetja SMBV.
Figure 3 demonstrates that, since 2010, SMBV is loss-making on its roasting activities, when the margin on green coffee beans required by SCTC increased.
Poročilo o transfernih cenah navaja sporazum o nabavi surovih kavnih zrn med podjetjema SMBV in SCTC kot eno najpomembnejših transakcij in tokov znotraj podjetja, vendar ne razišče ali ne analizira, ali je cena, po kateri podjetje SCTC zaračunava surova kavna zrna podjetju SMBV, v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
Taking that fact into account, along with the data in Table 10 that show the percentage of royalty paid by SMBV to Alki LP over the revenue from sales of coffee, the roasting know-how and curves do not appear to create positive value for SMBV.
Določanje cen surovih kavnih zrn s strani podjetja SCTC je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 114 do 119.
For example, in 2013, although SMBV seems to have recorded a gross loss (before operating expense is deducted) of around EUR [1-10] million on its roasting activities, it paid a royalty of EUR 22,8 million to Alki LP for the roasting IP.
V tabeli 6 Starbucks prikazuje razčlenitev dodatka za surova kavna zrna, ki jih je kupilo podjetje SCTC, zaračunanega podjetju SCTC.
In other words, the royalty payment from SMBV to Alki LP is financed through the other activities of SMBV [159].
Na podlagi finančnih podatkov podjetja SCTC, navedenih v tabeli 4, tabela 11 predstavlja dejanski dodatek, ki ga je zabeležilo podjetje STCT, in dejansko bruto maržo, ki jo je zaračunalo svojim strankam vsako leto.
While it is conceivable that an economic operator would bear losses to finance a royalty that could lead to future increased profits, the loss-bearing nature of the activity is related to the increase in the price of green coffee beans by SCTC and does not seem to offer any prospects of future profits [160].
Tabela 11
Indeed, SMBV's business strategy appears stable over the lifetime of the APA and there is no concrete actions that SMBV could undertake to return to profitability, in absence of an y decisive influence on the sales.
Dodatek za nabavo surovih kavnih zrn in bruto marža, ki jo je uporabilo podjetje SCTC
Since operating costs represent a small portion of SMBV's total costs, cost cutting would not be sufficient to return to profitability because it would not make up for the financial impact of the increased mark-up on the green coffee beans.
Kot navaja Starbucks, dodatek [približno 3 %], ki v povprečju velja za obdobje 2005–2010, ustreza tržno utemeljenemu dodatku.
The royalty paid by SMBV to Alki LP for the roasting IP in an intra-group context appears to serve structurally the sole purpose of shifting profits derived from SMBV's reselling function to Alki LP.
Če se ta dodatek odšteje od dodatkov od leta 2011, je videti, da je rezultat plačilo, ki ga je zabeležilo podjetje SMBV za dejavnosti praženja, kar je v skladu z ocenjenim razponom, ki ga je predstavilo podjetje X, in sicer 13 do 17 % na COGS za dejavnosti praženja [182].
The fact that the roasting activity does not generate sufficient profit to allow for royalty payments therefore further confirms, given the specific intra-group relationship between SMBV and Alki LP, that the methodology for determining the level of that royalty as an adjustment variable as accepted by the SMBV APA is not in line with the arm's-length principle.
Ker pa podjetje Starbucks ni predložilo tehtne utemeljitve za povečanje povprečnega dodatka [približno 18 %] od leta 2011 naprej, Komisija meni, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 349 do 357, da od tega obdobja naprej ni mogoče sprejeti nobenega ustreznega odbitka na računovodske dobičke podjetja SMBV kot posledico tega povečanja.
Accordingly, in light of the comparison with Starbucks' roasting arrangements with third parties, the Commission considers that a transfer pricing analysis of the arm's-length value of the royalty paid by SMBV to Alki LP for the roasting IP leads to the conclusion that no royalty should be due for that IP, since SMBV does not seem to derive any benefit from the use of the roasting IP in that relationship.
Če bi pravzaprav poročilo o transfernih cenah ustrezno analiziralo ceno, ki jo je podjetje SCTC zaračunalo podjetju SMBV za surova kavna zrna, kot povezano transakcijo, bi morala biti cena v skladu s sporazumom SMBV APA, na podlagi katerega se določa davčna osnova podjetja SMBV na Nizozemskem [184].
None of the arguments advanced by the Netherlands or Starbucks during the investigation invalidate that conclusion.
Ker se cena, plačana za surova kavna zrna, odšteje od računovodskih dobičkov podjetja SMBV, bi moral sporazum SMBV APA določiti tržno utemeljeno ceno v letu 2008, od katere ne bi bilo možno nikakršno odstopanje v letu 2011, vključno s povečanjem dodatka, razen če bi bil ta sporazum APA nadomeščen ali spremenjen.
The royalty payment does not reflect a remuneration for taking over entrepreneurial risks
Starbucks trdi, da je razlog povečanja dodatka v letu 2011 vse večji pomen dejavnosti podjetja SCTC, zlasti povečano strokovno znanje pri nabavi kave in, kar je še pomembnejše, lastništvo in upravljanje razvijajočega se programa praks C.A.F.E.
In response to the Commission's doubts on the arm's-length nature of the royalty payment, the Netherlands and Starbucks claimed that that payment does not only reflect a remuneration for the use of the roasting IP, but also a payment for the taking over of entrepreneurial risk by Alki LP [161].
Nadalje, ker je plačilo za podjetje SCTC sorazmerno s prodanimi surovimi kavnimi zrni, bi moralo prejeti ustrezno plačilo tudi za vsako povečanje zmogljivosti.
The Netherlands invokes the fact that SMBV would not carry the economic risk of loss of inventory, since, given the way the royalty payment is determined under the Roasting Agreement, those costs are ultimately borne by Alki LP [162].
In dejansko, dokler plačilo pomeni stabilen delež stroškov COGS, je povečanje prometa prineslo sorazmerno povečanje dobička.
In return [SMBV] remits a royalty to Alki LP for the licensed IP’ [163].
Komisija to trditev zavrača iz naslednjih razlogov.
More important, nowhere in the transfer pricing report is any mention made of the fact that the royalty payment would partly constitute a payment by SMBV to Alki LP for the taking over of entrepreneurial risks.
Prvič, kar zadeva določanje cen za program C.A.F.E. v analizi primerljivk, ki jo je podjetje Starbucks predložilo 29. junija 2015 [186], Komisija ugotavlja, da so pri navedenih podatkih težave zaradi neusklajenosti.
In fact, SMBV retains more risks than presented in the transfer pricing, in particular, inventory risks and certain risks related to the supply of beans and the manufacturing capacity utilisation.
Podatki, predstavljeni 13. aprila 2015, in znova navedeni v tabeli 6, so v nasprotju s podatki z 29. junija 2015, navedenimi v tabeli 7.
The Commission observes, second, that the Netherlands appears to consider that the way in which the contractual arrangement under the Roasting Agreement is structured [164] gives legal substance to the actual allocation of risk and responsibilities between Alki LP and SMBV.
Natančneje, v zvezi s programom C.A.F.E je podatke, ki so prvotno navedeni kot zgornji kvartil, podjetje Starbucks pozneje navedlo kot največjo ugotovljeno vrednost.
However, according to SMBV's accounts, the royalty payment is generated by the SMBV APA and not by the contractual arrangement between Alki LP and SMBV.
Nedoslednosti zadevajo tudi dejavnik preoblikovanja, ki naj bi izražal licenčnino, dogovorjeno kot odstotek od prodaje, pri čemer Starbucks izvede posebno prilagoditev, da bi prišel do licenčnine, izražene kot odstotek stroškov [187].
Third, and most important, the Commission considers that if the Netherlands' claim were accepted, the business risk of any group company could be eliminated through intra-group reallocation of risks by simple means of contract.
Poleg tega se navedeni sporazumi [188] nanašajo na licenciranje tehnologije.
For example, a company undertaking all strategic decisions for a group, in particular, investment and R & D decisions, which would in principle be considered as a complex function concentrating entrepreneurial risk, could be considered as ‘low risk’ and taxed accordingly, so long as an intragroup contract would be put in place setting its remuneration at any random level of operating expense and passing its residual profits to any other group company.
To bi bilo mogoče primerjati s položajem, v katerem Starbucks prek podjetja Alki LP licencira tehnologijo podjetju SMBV, čeprav je videti, da sporazumi, v katerih je podeljena licenca za tehnologijo, ne obstajajo samostojno glede na licenčni sporazum o blagovnih znamkah kave.
Accepting that claim would render the application of the arm's-length principle for the pricing of intragroup transactions meaningless, since contractual arrangements would be considered to trump economic reality.
SCTC podjetju SMBV ne licencira tehnologije, za kar bi SMBV prejel plačilo prek višjega dodatka na kupljena surova kavna zrna.
The Commission recalls [165], in that respect, paragraphs 9.44 to 9.46 of the 2010 OECD TP Guidelines [166] which clarify in the context of a business restructuring that ‘it is the low (or high) risk nature of a business that will dictate the selection of the most appropriate transfer pricing method, and not the contrary’ [167].
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da so bili stroški programa C.A.F.E. in centrov za podporo kmetom v povprečju največ [0,5–1] % vrednosti pri surovih kavnih zrnih, ki jih je kupilo podjetje SCTC [189].
Contrary to the views expressed by the Netherlands [168], this idea that the application of the transfer pricing rules should follow risks and not contractual arrangements when those arrangements do not reflect the underlying business risk, is also valid outside the context of a business restructuring.
Ti stroški so primerljivi s stroški [programa certificiranja] v višini [1.5–2] %, sorazmerno ceni surovih kavnih zrn, ki se uporablja za „[kavni proizvod iz programa certificiranja]“, ki je najbolj prodajan proizvod podjetja SMBV [190].
While it is true that agreeing on a transfer pricing method (i.e. such as the TNMM method based on operating costs) and constructing contractual arrangements such as to adjust the pre-tax profit each year to that arrangement results in limiting the fluctuation of the tax liability of the company over fiscal years, such a structure constructed through contractual arrangements does not, however, necessarily correspond to the economic reality underlying the transactions and the risks associated with the activity of the company.
Pravzaprav je videti, da program C.A.F.E. sestavlja program certificiranja, ki je bolj primerljiv z označbo [programa certificiranja] kot z intelektualno lastnino ali licenco za tehnologijo, kot to predstavlja Starbucks.
The 1995 OECD TP Guidelines present this consideration in paragraph 1.26, according to which, ‘in relation to contractual terms, it may be considered whether a purported allocation of risk is consistent with the economic substance of the transaction.
Poleg tega so cene proizvodov, ki jih SMBV prodaja trgovinam, določene na osnovi stroškov, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 96.
In this regard, the parties’ conduct should generally be taken as the best evidence concerning the true allocation of risk'.
Zato Komisija meni, da so v nasprotju s tem, kar trdi Starbucks, neposredni in posredni stroški programa C.A.F.E ustreznejši pristop za določanje tržno utemeljenih cen programa glede cene za surova kavna zrna, ki se zaračunava podjetju SMBV.