natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Considering that this level of remuneration is lower than the level of remuneration for LuxSCS resulting from the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling, according to which it was attributed the entire residual profit generated by LuxOpCo in excess of a routine remuneration for allegedly routine functions, the Commission concludes that the contested tax ruling conferred an economic advantage on LuxOpCo in the form of a reduction of its taxable base for Luxembourg corporate income tax purposes as compared to the income of companies whose taxable profit reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market.
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok.
SUBSIDIARY FINDING OF AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
Po vsaki prekinitvi začne rok teči znova.
Without prejudice to the assessment in Section 9.2.1, the Commission considers, by way of a subsidiary line of reasoning, that even if Luxembourg were right to have accepted the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, which the Commission contests, the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling still confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo, since it is based on inappropriate choices leading to a reduction of that company's taxable income.
Zastaranje se zadrži tako dolgo, dokler je sklep Komisije v postopku pred Sodiščem EU.
More specifically, the Commission identified the following inappropriate methodological choices underpinning the contested tax ruling that result in a taxable income for LuxOpCo that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle: (i) LuxOpCo was inaccurately considered to perform only ‘routine’ functions, as a result of which the whole of the residual profit was attributed to LuxSCS; (ii) the profit level indicator selected for the purposes of the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling should have been based on total costs not operating expenses; and (iii) there is no economic justification for the inclusion of a ceiling in that transfer pricing arrangement.
Kakršna koli pomoč, pri kateri je zastaralni rok potekel, pa se šteje kot veljavna pomoč.
Each of those inappropriate methodological choices independently lead to the conclusion that the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling produces a result that departs from a reliable approximation of an arm's length outcome.
Skupina Amazon trdi, da je vsa pomoč, odobrena na podlagi zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča, veljavna pomoč, ker je zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče posamezni ukrep, ki ji je bil odobren več kot deset let prej, preden je Komisija v zvezi z zadevnim vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem začela preiskavo na področju državne pomoči.
For the reasons set out in Section 9.2.1, the Commission considers that the Luxembourg tax administration should not have accepted a transfer pricing arrangement based on the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles.
Namen zadevnega davčnega stališča je bil namreč družbi LuxOpCo omogočiti, da za neko obdobje določi svojo letno obveznost iz davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu.
Rather, the purpose of this assessment is to demonstrate that, even if that administration were right to have accepted that assumption, which the Commission contests, the contested tax ruling still confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo since the transfer pricing arrangement it endorses is based on the three aforementioned inappropriate methodological choices which result in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable income as compared to companies whose taxable profit reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market.
Z njim se potrjuje metoda določanja transfernih cen, na podlagi katere lahko družba LuxOpCo izračuna svoj transferne cene, od katerih je nato odvisen njen letni obdavčljivi dobiček.
LuxOpCo was incorrectly considered to perform solely ‘routine’ management functions
Nato svoj dobiček prijavi v letni napovedi za odmero davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki jo je Luksemburg sprejel vsako leto v obravnavanem obdobju.
As explained in Section 9.2.1.2, far from performing solely ‘routine’ management functions, LuxOpCo performed a range of unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles and Amazon's European business operations during the relevant period.
Pomoč se torej na podlagi zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča odobri vsako leto, ko luksemburška davčna uprava sprejme navedeno napoved.
Nevertheless, even if the Luxembourg tax administration were right to accept the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, the fact that LuxOpCo also performed such functions means that it was inappropriate to endorse a transfer pricing arrangement according to which the entire residual profit generated by LuxOpCo in excess of [4-6] % of its operating expenses was attributed to LuxSCS.
V obravnavanem primeru to pomeni, da je veljavna samo pomoč, odobrena pred 24. junijem 2004, saj je bil zastaralni rok iz člena 17 Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 prekinjen 24. junija 2014, ko je Komisija Luksemburgu poslala dopis, v katerem je zahtevala informacije o vseh vnaprejšnjih davčnih stališčih, izdanih skupini Amazon.
As explained in Recital 256, where both parties to the intra-group transaction make unique and valuable contributions to that transaction, the profit split method is usually considered a more appropriate transfer pricing method because in such a case independent parties would be expected to share the profits of the transaction in proportion to their respective contributions.
Kot je navedla skupina Amazon, je bilo zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče pridobljeno leta 2003, vendar družba LuxOpCo v njem potrjene metode določanja transfernih cen pred letom 2006 ni uporabila za določitev svoje letne obveznosti iz davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu.
As further explained in that Recital, the OECD TP Guidelines describe two approaches to divide the combined profits among the associated companies: the contribution analysis and the residual analysis.
Vsa pomoč, ki je bila družbi LuxOpCo in skupini Amazon odobrena na podlagi zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča, torej pomeni novo pomoč.
Where both parties perform unique and valuable contributions and there are no less complex transactions that need to be priced separately, it is more appropriate to apply the contribution analysis for the attribution of combined profits; a residual analysis is appropriate if some less complex transactions exist.
VRAČILO NI V NASPROTJU Z NOBENIM SPLOŠNIM PRAVNIM NAČELOM
In the contribution analysis, the combined profits are split on the basis of the relative value of the functions performed (taking account assets used and risks assumed) by each of the parties involved in the intra-group transaction being priced.
Člen 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 določa, da Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Unije.
Accordingly, in this case, where both LuxSCS and LuxOpCo are considered to perform unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, this method is preferred over the residual analysis, where one party is also remunerated for its routine functions in addition to the remuneration it receives for its unique and valuable contributions to the transaction.
Luksemburg trdi, da načeli pravne varnosti in legitimnega pričakovanja v obravnavanem primeru nasprotujeta vračilu, prvič, ker Komisija za nazaj uporablja domnevno nov pristop na področju transfernih cen in, drugič, ker sta mu Skupina za kodeks ravnanja (obdavčitev podjetij) in Forum OECD o škodljivih davčnih praksah zagotovila, da je njegova praksa na področju vnaprejšnjih davčnih stališč na podlagi člena 164(3) LIR in okrožnice v skladu s kodeksom ravnanja OECD in smernicami OECD za določanje transfernih cen.
The application of the contribution analysis to the present case would have led to a remuneration for LuxOpCo corresponding to all the functions it performs (as set out in Sections 9.2.1.2.1 and 9.2.1.2.2), the assets used by it (as set out in Sections 9.2.1.2.3) and the risk assumed by it (as set out in Sections 9.2.1.2.4), which would have been greater than the remuneration resulting from the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling, since that arrangement was based on the incorrect assumption that LuxOpCo performs solely ‘routine’ management functions.
Načelo pravne varnosti je splošno načelo prava Unije, v skladu s katerim morajo biti pravila in njihovi pravni učinki predvidljivi.
Consequently, by endorsing that transfer pricing arrangement, the contested tax ruling confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo, since it results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable income as compared to companies whose taxable profit reflects prices negotiated by contrast at arm's length on the market.
V skladu s sodno prakso načelo pravne varnosti nasprotuje temu, da bi Komisija lahko neomejeno odlašala z izvajanjem svojih pooblastil.
Inappropriate choice of operating expenses as profit level indicator
Sodišče je navedlo tudi, da sta edina razloga, na podlagi katerih se je mogoče v izjemnih primerih sklicevati na to načelo, očitna opustitev ukrepanja Komisije in očitna kršitev njene obveznosti skrbnega ravnanja pri izvajanju nadzornih pooblastil.
Even if the Luxembourg tax administration were right to accept the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, and even if it were subsequently right to accept that LuxOpCo performed solely ‘routine’ management functions, the Commission considers the choice of a profit level indicator based on operating costs in the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling to be inappropriate.
Kadar pa je ukrep odobren brez priglasitve, zgolj zamuda Komisije pri odreditvi vračila pomoči sama po sebi ne zadostuje za to, da je sklep o vračilu nezakonit glede na načelo pravne varnosti.
As explained in Recital 550, the choice of profit level indicator in the application of the TNMM must reflect the value of the functions performed by the tested party in the controlled transaction, taking into account the assets used and the risks assumed by it, it must be based on objective data, and it must be capable of being measured in a reasonably reliable and consistent manner.
Ker v obravnavanem primeru Luksemburg Komisiji zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča ni nikoli priglasil in ker to niti kako drugače ni bilo javno dostopno, je lahko Komisija izvedela za njegov obstoj šele, ko je Luksemburg 4. avgusta 2014 odgovoril na njeno zahtevo za informacije.
While the contested tax ruling endorsed a transfer pricing arrangement with a mark-up on operating expenses as profit level indicator, as proposed in Amazon's letter of 23 October 2003, the TP Report in fact determined a mark-up on total costs as the profit level indicator for the independent companies considered as comparables for the application of the residual profit split method.
Na načelo legitimnega pričakovanja se lahko sklicuje vsaka zadevna oseba, „pri kateri je institucija [Unije] ustvarila upravičena pričakovanja“.
Asked to explain this apparent inconsistency, as well as another inconsistency in the TP Report where the results of the comparables search were presented as a percentage of sales rather than as a percentage of total costs, Amazon confirmed that the comparables analysis indeed resulted in a mark-up as a percentage of total costs, rather than in a mark-up as a percentage of sales or operating expenses.
Kot je odločilo Sodišče, pa za sklicevanje na to načelo veljajo pomembne omejitve.
Amazon argued that, regardless of this inconsistency, the result is substantially the same, since the companies used as comparables do not report substantial COGS and operating expenses are the main component of their total costs.
Prvič, Sodišče je določilo, da se ne sme nihče sklicevati na to načelo „brez natančnih zagotovil, ki mu jih je zagotovila uprava“.
That argument is at odds with the TP Report's choice of comparables in the first place, since LuxOpCo does report substantial COGS.
Drugič, države članice se ne morejo sklicevati na to načelo, če so opustile priglasitev ukrepa pomoči Komisiji.
In fact, it is inherent to the business model of LuxOpCo as retailer that COGS constitute the largest component of total costs of the company.
Tretjič, domnevna opustitev ukrepanja Komisije ni upoštevna, če ji ukrep pomoči ni bil priglašen , tako da njenega molka ni mogoče razlagati kot implicitno odobritev ukrepa, ki lahko ustvari upravičena pričakovanja.
Therefore, selecting companies which, contrary to LuxOpCo, do not report substantial COGS, would indicate an inappropriate choice of comparable companies, since they lacked some of the characteristics inherent to LuxOpCo's functional profile.
Ker torej Komisija Luksemburgu ni nikoli dala natančnih zagotovil, da zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče ne pomeni pomoči, in ker Luksemburg zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča ni nikoli priglasil Komisiji, se Luksemburg ne more sklicevati na načelo legitimnega pričakovanja.
In any event, several companies selected for the comparables analysis in the TP Report do, in fact, report significant COGS.
Komisija zavrača naknadno trditev Luksemburga, da je v obravnavanem primeru uporabila nov pristop za ugotavljanje obstoja pomoči.
Since total costs is a broader base than operating expense, if the outcome of the comparables search in the TP Report had been applied to LuxOpCo's total costs and not its operating expenses, its resulting annual taxable income would have been higher than the remuneration agreed in the contested tax ruling.
Prvič, Sodišče je v odgovor na trditev države članice, da neposredno obdavčenje spada na področje njene davčne suverenosti, v sodbi iz leta 1974 izrecno odobrilo uporabo pravil o državni pomoči na področju neposrednega obdavčenja.
This is because operating expenses exclude the costs related to raw materials and COGS and COGS are the main variable component of LuxOpCo's costs.
Ker vnaprejšnje davčno stališče ni nič drugega kot razlaga davčnih pravil v določenem položaju, na katero se lahko davčni zavezanec zanese pri določitvi svojega davčnega bremena v državi članici, se pravila o državni pomoči nujno uporabljajo tudi za vnaprejšnja davčna stališča, kot je Komisija izrecno navedla v Obvestilu o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Obvestilo iz leta 1998).
The difference is demonstrated in Table 20.
Drugič, Komisija je med letoma 2002 in 2004 sprejela vrsto odločb, v katerih je ugotovila, da več davčnih sistemov različnih držav članic pomeni državno pomoč, ker se je z njimi odobrila metoda določanja obdavčljivega dohodka nekaterih kategorij podjetij, ki je odstopala od zanesljivega približka tržno naravnanemu rezultatu ali je koristila določenim podjetjem iz mednarodnih skupin na podlagi splošnih pravil o obdavčenju podjetij.
Table 20
Sodišče je v sodbi iz leta 2006 izrecno potrdilo tezo, da metoda določanja obdavčljivega dohodka, katere rezultat odstopa od neodvisnega tržnega načela, pomeni odobritev državne pomoči upravičencu ali upravičencem.
Comparison of LuxOpCo's profit determined based on the contested tax ruling and calculated similarly to the profit level indicator used for comparable entities in the transfer pricing report
Luksemburg nato trdi, da je Svet ECOFIN na srečanju dne 27. maja 2011 izrecno potrdil, da po sprejetju okrožnic ni bilo treba oceniti luksemburške prakse v zvezi z vnaprejšnjimi davčnimi stališči po merilih iz kodeksa ravnanja in da dogovor, dosežen na srečanju Skupine za kodeks ravnanja (obdavčitev podjetij), da „[luksemburškega davčnega ukrepa v zvezi z družbami, ki v okviru svoje skupine izvajajo dejavnosti financiranja,] ni treba oceniti po merilih iz kodeksa ravnanja“, pomeni natančno zagotovilo glede zakonitosti splošne prakse Luksemburga v zvezi z izdajanjem vnaprejšnjih davčnih stališč.
Profit attributed to LuxOpCo according to the contested
Vendar teh trditev ni mogoče sprejeti kot utemeljitve domnevne kršitve načel pravne varnosti in legitimnega pričakovanja.
Profit of LuxOpCo at [4-6] % of total costs (no ceiling/foor)
Prvič, kodeks ravnanja in pravila o državni pomoči imajo različne cilje: cilj prvega je boj proti škodljivi davčni konkurenci med državami članicami, cilj drugih pa je odpraviti izkrivljanje konkurence, ki izvira iz ugodnega obravnavanja določenih podjetij s strani držav članic, zlasti v obliki znižanja davkov.
According to the comparables search in the TP Report, a mark-up on total costs would produce a remuneration for LuxOpCo in line with the arm's length principle.
Drugič, kodeks ravnanja ni pravno zavezujoč instrument.
Consequently, by endorsing a transfer pricing arrangement based on a mark-up on operating expense, the contested tax ruling confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo by inappropriately lowering its annual taxable income.
Gre za forum, v katerem lahko države članice razpravljajo o ukrepih, ki imajo ali bi lahko imeli znaten vpliv na geografsko umestitev podjetij v Uniji.
Inappropriate inclusion of a ceiling in the transfer pricing arrangement
Medtem ko ima skupina za kodeks ravnanja določeno polje proste presoje, pa Komisija nima nikakršne diskrecijske pravice pri ugotavljanju, ali je treba davčni ukrep šteti za državno pomoč, saj je pojem državne pomoči objektiven.
The Commission also considers the transfer pricing arrangement's inclusion of a ceiling to determine LuxOpCo's taxable base to produce an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome.
Tretjič, kodeks ravnanja je sprejel Svet ECOFIN in ne Komisija, tako da Komisije ne more zavezovati pri izvajanju pristojnosti na področju državne pomoči.
More specifically, according to that arrangement, LuxOpCo's arm's length remuneration cannot exceed 0,55 % of its annual sales.
Četrtič, s kodeksom ravnanja so bile okrožnice o financiranju znotraj skupine obravnavane na splošno, medtem ko se ta sklep nanaša na točno določeno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče v korist konkretne družbe, ki ni povezano s financiranjem znotraj skupine.
As a matter of fact, in financial years 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the Luxembourg tax administration effectively accepted tax declarations by LuxOpCo in which its taxable income was determined by the ceiling of 0,55 % of its annual sales, instead of being determined as [4-6] % of its operating expenses.
Tudi če bi se lahko štelo, da navedene okrožnice ne povzročajo škodljive davčne konkurence, to ne bi pomenilo, da enako velja za posamezno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče na področju transfernih cen, odobreno skupini Amazon.
The Commission observes, first and foremost, that the inclusion of that ceiling is not justified in the TP Report.
Zato dogovor, dosežen na srečanju Skupine za kodeks ravnanja, ne more zavezovati Komisije niti omejevati njenega ukrepanja pri izvajanju pooblastil, ki jih ima na podlagi Pogodbe na področju državne pomoči.
Nor do any of the ex post transfer pricing studies submitted by Amazon in the course of the investigation justify that inclusion from a transfer pricing perspective.
Enako velja za dogovore, dosežene 6. decembra 2011 v okviru Foruma OECD, v skladu s katerimi „[…] nadaljnja presoja naslednjih desetih shem ni potrebna […] Luksemburg – podrobna davčna analiza financiranja znotraj skupine“.
Luxembourg and Amazon argue that the ceiling is necessary to encourage LuxOpCo to manage its operations in a cost-efficient manner.
OECD ni institucija Unije, niti ni Unija članica te organizacije, in njene ugotovitve, ki niso zavezujoče, ne morejo zavezovati institucij Unije.
They further argue that the application of the ceiling never resulted in LuxOpCo's taxable income being outside the arm's length range .
Poleg tega Forum OECD ni podrobno preučil davčne analize financiranja znotraj skupine, ki jo je opravil Luksemburg, kar je daleč od tega, da bi predložil natančno zagotovilo.
The Commission cannot accept either argument.
Prav tako je iz te izjave nemogoče kar koli ugotoviti ali sklepati v zvezi z uporabo pravil o državni pomoči pri zadevnem vnaprejšnjem davčnem stališču, ki je posamezno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče v zvezi s transfernimi cenami in ni povezano s financiranjem znotraj skupine.
Apart from the fact that the ceiling has never been determined on the basis of any comparability analysis, the erroneous application of the mark-up to the operating costs, instead of the total costs, led to an unjustified reduction of LuxOpCo's taxable basis.
Skupina Amazon se sklicuje tudi na načelo legitimnega pričakovanja in trdi, da je preiskava Komisije temeljila na novi razlagi pravil o državni pomoči.
Its further reduction in the years 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 therefore cannot lie within the range of arm's length results.
Komisija je že v uvodni izjavi 626 dokazala, zakaj ta trditev ni utemeljena.
Consequently, the inclusion of a ceiling in the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo since it produces an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of an arm's length outcome and results in a lowering of its taxable income.
Da bi bila domnevna kršitev načela legitimnega pričakovanja potrjena, mora to pričakovanje izhajati iz predhodnega ukrepa Komisije v obliki natančnih zagotovil.
Conclusion on the subsidiary finding of an economic advantage
Legitimno pričakovanje mora torej temeljiti na predhodnem ravnanju Komisije, ki je na primer že sprejela odločbo o istem ali podobnem sistemu pomoči.
The presence of the aforementioned methodological inconsistencies underlying the contested tax ruling means that, even if the Luxembourg tax administration were right to accept the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, that ruling nevertheless confers an economic advantage in LuxOpCo since it produces an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome which results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable income and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg as compared to companies whose taxable profit reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market.
Skupina Amazon ni izhajala iz nobenega takega akta, ki bi ga sprejela Komisija, in je celo trdila, da „se Komisija še nikoli ni izrekla o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za posamezna vnaprejšnja davčna stališča na področju transfernih cen“.
SELECTIVITY
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da je pojem državne pomoči objektiven pojem, tako da tudi če pred letom 2015 ne obstajajo odločbe o tem, da posamezna vnaprejšnja davčna stališča pomenijo državno pomoč, iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da ta ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
According to settled case-law, ‘the assessment of [the condition of selectivity] requires a determination whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ over other undertakings which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation and who accordingly suffer different treatment that can, in essence, be classified as discriminatory’.
Komisija je vsekakor sprejela več odločb o tem, da sistemi, ki odstopajo od neodvisnega tržnega načela, pomenijo državno pomoč, in več odločb o tem, da posamezni davčni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč.