natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A distinction is made between the conditions of advantage and selectivity to ensure that not all State measures that confer an advantage (i.e. that improve an undertaking's net financial position) constitute State aid, but only those which grant such an advantage in a selective manner to certain undertakings or certain categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.
Skupina Amazon se sklicuje tudi na načelo enakega obravnavanja, pri čemer trdi, da je med številnimi podjetji, ki so enako davčno obravnavana, edina, ki mora vrniti nezakonito pomoč.
What this means is that measures of purely general application – which confer an advantage, but which do not favour certain undertakings only or the production of certain goods – do not constitute State aid, since they are not selective in nature.
Vendar je sodišče Unije že odločilo, da to, da druga podjetja, vključno s konkurenti, prejmejo državno pomoč, ne vpliva na označitev ukrepa kot pomoči.
Therefore, a key aspect to assess selectivity is to determine whether the measure in question is of general application or, on the contrary, applies only to certain undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given Member State.
Ker je vračilo logična posledica obstoja nezakonite pomoči, mora to še toliko bolj veljati za vračilo nezakonite državne pomoči.
In this context, the Court of Justice has made a distinction between individual aid measures and aid schemes and has indicated that the selectivity requirement differs depending on which category a measure falls into.
Skratka, vračilo v obravnavanem primeru ni v nasprotju z nobenim splošnim pravnim načelom.
According to the Court, ‘the selectivity requirement differs depending on whether the measure in question is envisaged as a general scheme of aid or as individual aid.
METODA VRAČILA
In the latter case, the identification of the economic advantage is, in principle, sufficient to support the presumption that it is selective.
Cilj obveznosti države, da odpravi nezakonito pomoč, ki jo Komisija šteje za nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom, je ponovno vzpostaviti prejšnji konkurenčni položaj na trgu.
By contrast, when examining a general scheme of aid, it is necessary to identify whether the measure in question, notwithstanding the finding that it confers an advantage of general application, does so to the exclusive benefit of certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity’.
Sodišče EU je v zvezi s tem navedlo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko upravičenec vrne zneske, dodeljene z nezakonito pomočjo, in se tako odpove prednosti, ki jo je imel v primerjavi s konkurenti na trgu, ter ko se ponovno vzpostavi stanje pred izplačilom pomoči.
In other words, the identification of a group of undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given Member State which benefit from the measure in question to the exclusion of economic operators in a similar factual and legal situation is relevant within the context of the assessment of the selectivity of schemes which can, at least potentially, be of a general application.
Z nobeno določbo prava Evropske unije se ne zahteva, da Komisija ob odreditvi vračila pomoči, razglašene za nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom, opredeli natančen znesek pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti.
By contrast, in the case of individual aid measures, which are addressed to only one undertaking in view of its specific circumstances, such an analysis is not necessary.
Nasprotno, zadostuje, da so v sklepu Komisije podatki, ki njegovemu naslovniku omogočajo, da ta znesek brez večjih težav opredeli sam .
PRIMARY FINDING OF SELECTIVITY
Pravo Unije zahteva le, da se nezakonito dodeljena pomoč vrne, da se ponovno vzpostavi prejšnje stanje in da se vračilo izvede v skladu s pravili nacionalnega prava.
The contested tax ruling is an individual measure.
Zato se Komisija lahko omeji samo na ugotovitev obveznosti vračila zadevnih pomoči, nacionalnim organom pa prepusti izračun natančnih zneskov pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti.
It is addressed only to Amazon.com Inc., it concerns only the tax situation of LuxOpCo and LuxSCS, it can be used only by LuxOpCo to assess its yearly taxable income and its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg, and any reduction of its tax revenue is based individually on that company's results.
V primeru nezakonite državne pomoči v obliki davčnih ukrepov je treba znesek za vračilo izračunati na podlagi primerjave med dejansko plačanim davkom in zneskom, ki bi moral biti plačan v skladu s splošno veljavnim pravilom.
Given that the contested tax ruling is an individual measure, the Commission may presume that it is selective in nature, since it has demonstrated in Section 9.2 that it confers an advantage on LuxOpCo by endorsing a transfer pricing arrangement producing an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome which results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable base and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 542, bi moralo biti plačilo družbe LuxOpCo družbi LuxSCS določeno na podlagi TNMM, pri kateri se družba LuxSCS šteje za manj kompleksno stranko licenčne pogodbe, pri plačilu, ki ga mora družba LuxOpCo plačati družbi LuxSCS, pa bi se moralo upoštevati, da je družba LuxSCS testna stranka.
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF SELECTIVITY
Pri plačilu družbi LuxSCS bi bilo treba upoštevati dejstvo, da izvaja posredniško funkcijo v zvezi z neopredmetenimi sredstvi: je samo imetnica pravnega lastništva in dajalka licence za navedena sredstva, ki jih imata v lasti družbi ATI in A9, medtem ko pravice do razvoja, izboljševanja, upravljanja in uporabe neopredmetenih sredstev prenese na družbo LuxOpCo, da lahko ta družba upravlja dejavnost prodaje na drobno skupine Amazon v Evropi.
Although the Commission may presume the selectivity of the contested tax ruling on the basis that it is an individual measure that confers an advantage on LuxOpCo, it has also examined, for the sake of completeness, whether that ruling is selective under the three-step analysis devised by the Court of Justice for aid schemes.
Upoštevati bi bilo treba tudi dejstvo, da družba LuxSCS sama v resnici izvaja samo omejene funkcije v obliki splošnih administrativnih funkcij, namenjenih ohranjanju pravnega lastništva neopredmetenih sredstev, ki jih dejansko v njenem imenu zagotavljajo zunanji izvajalci (glej uvodno izjavo 429).
In order to classify a national tax measure as selective under that analysis, the Commission must begin by identifying the ordinary or normal tax system applicable in the Member State concerned (the ‘reference system’) and thereafter demonstrate that the tax measure at issue is a derogation from that system, in so far as it differentiates between operators who, in the light of the objective pursued by that system, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Kar zadeva določitev ustrezne stroškovne osnove, ki se ji prišteje dodatek, Komisija ugotavlja, da družba LuxSCS ne knjiži nobene prodaje in ne prevzema tveganja v zvezi z neopredmetenimi sredstvi.
A tax measure which constitutes a derogation to the application of the reference system may nevertheless be justified if the Member State concerned can show that that measure results directly from the basic or guiding principles of that tax system.
Zato bi bilo treba za določitev plačila družbi LuxSCS uporabiti plačilo, ki temelji na stroških, pri čemer se dodatek prišteje samo zunanjim stroškom za njene dejanske funkcije, vendar brez dodatka na stroške pristopa in stroške na podlagi dogovora o delitvi stroškov, ki jih družba LuxSCS dejansko samo prenese na družbi A9 in ATI.
Favourable treatment as compared to all corporate taxpayers
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega bi bilo treba znesek za vračilo določiti tako: (i) da se vzame računovodski dobiček družbe LuxOpCo za vsako poslovno leto, v katerem se je zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče uporabilo za določitev njene obveznosti iz davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb; (ii) da se od tega zneska odštejejo vsota stroškov pristopa in stroškov na podlagi dogovora o delitvi stroškov, stroški zunanjih storitev, opravljenih za družbo LuxSCS, in ustrezen dodatek na stroške teh storitev, kolikor ti stroški izražajo funkcije, ki jih je dejansko izvedla družba LuxSCS; (iii) da se za dobljeni znesek uporabi običajni sistem obdavčenja dobička pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu, kar vključuje običajni davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb, občinski davek, dodatne dajatve in davek od premoženja; (iv) da se od tako dobljenega zneska odšteje znesek davka, ki ga je družba LuxOpCo dejansko plačala za vsako poslovno leto, v katerem je veljalo zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče.
The contested tax ruling was granted to Amazon in order to allow its Luxembourg subsidiary, LuxOpCo, to assess its annual taxable profit for the purposes of determining its corporate income tax liability under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Luxembourg.
Razlika med točkama (iii) in (iv) je znesek pomoči, ki ga je treba vrniti za odpravo selektivne prednosti, ki jo je Luksemburg odobril z zadevnim vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem.
The Commission therefore considers the reference system in the present case to be composed of those rules, i.e. the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system.
SUBJEKT, ZA KATEREGA VELJA OBVEZNOST VRAČILA
It is thus against that system that it must be determined whether that ruling constitutes a derogation giving rise to a favourable treatment compared to other undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Komisija glede na ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 607 do 610 meni, da mora Luksemburg najprej od družbe LuxOpCo izterjati vračilo nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči, odobrene z zadevnim vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem.
According to the case-law, whether undertakings are in a comparable factual and legal situation for the purposes of the selectivity analysis depends on the objective of the reference system.
Če se izkaže, da družba LuxOpCo ni sposobna vrniti celotnega zneska pomoči, prejete na podlagi zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča, bi moral Luksemburg celotni preostali znesek vračila izterjati od skupine Amazon in/ali njenih naslednikov ali od družb iz navedene skupine, saj gre za subjekt, ki obvladuje skupino Amazon, ta pa je ena sama gospodarska enota, ki je prejela pomoč (glej oddelek 9.5).
The objective of the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system is the taxation of all profit that is subject to tax in Luxembourg.
Tako se neupravičena prednost, odobrena z zadevnim vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem, odpravi in z vračilom se ponovno vzpostavi prejšnji položaj na trgu.
Under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system, all resident corporate taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide profits, while non-resident taxpayers are taxed on their Luxembourg source income.
DOKAZI, KI JIH JE KOMISIJA UPORABILA ZA UGOTOVITEV OBSTOJA POMOČI
For the determination of the taxable profit under that system, the profits as set out in the commercial accounts of the taxpayer are used as a reference, subject to adjustments and allowances imposed by Luxembourg tax law.
Luksemburg je trdil, da del informacij, na katere se je Komisija oprla med formalnim postopkom preiskave, luksemburški davčni upravi na dan sprejetja zadevnega vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča ni bil na voljo, tako da je Komisija imela vpogled v dejstva za nazaj, ko je preiskovala zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče.
Finally, under that system, the taxable profit of all resident taxpayers and all non-resident taxpayers is subject to the same tax rates.
Komisija opozarja, da so bili razlogi, na katerih temelji njena ugotovitev obstoja prednosti, takrat na voljo.
In the light of that objective, all corporate taxpayers, whether they operate independently on the market or form part of a multinational corporate group, are in a comparable factual and legal situation when it comes to assessing their corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
To se zlasti nanaša na funkcijsko analizo iz zahteve za vnaprejšnje davčno stališče in poročilo o transfernih cenah.
Indeed, the Luxembourg tax code lists the entities in Luxembourg that are subject to corporate income tax and it includes ‘toute entité économique pouvant être soumise directement à l'impôt sur le revenu des collectivités’.
V teh dokumentih je družba LuxSCS izrecno opisana kot družba, ki nima ne zaposlenih ne fizične prisotnosti, njene glavne dejavnosti pa so opisane kot dejavnosti, omejene na dejavnosti holdinške družbe s portfeljem neopredmetenih sredstev in stranke dogovora o delitvi stroškov, h kateremu naj bi prispevala samo finančno.
Neither the legal form of the undertaking nor its structure constitute a determinant criterion for the imposition of corporate income tax in Luxembourg.
Družba LuxOpCo pa je nasprotno opisana kot družba, ki izvaja funkcije evropskega sedeža, prevzema tveganja ter upravlja strateško odločanje in ključne fizične komponente maloprodajne dejavnosti skupine Amazon v Evropi.
In general, Luxembourg corporate income tax is levied on the basis of the separate entity approach, i.e. on the level of the individual entities, not on the level of the group, and the contested tax ruling relates only to the taxable profit of LuxOpCo, so that any reduced tax revenue is based individually on that company's results.
Ob teh opisih bi morala luksemburška davčna uprava podvomiti o netočni in neutemeljeni domnevi, da družba LuxSCS izvaja edinstvene in dragocene funkcije v zvezi z neopredmetenimi sredstvi, na katerih temelji metoda določanja transfernih cen, potrjena z zadevnim vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem.
While it is true that Luxembourg tax law contains certain special provisions applicable to groups (e.g. the rules on fiscal unity as applied by LuxOpCo, ASE and AMEU), these are aimed at putting on equal footing non-integrated companies and integrated companies rather than at treating groups more favourably.
Kakor koli že, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 620, datum, ko je pomoč dodeljena davčnemu zavezancu v položaju, ko je z vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem potrjena metoda določanja njegovega obdavčljivega dohodka, ustreza vsakemu poslovnemu letu, v katerem navedeni davčni zavezanec uporabi navedeno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče za določitev svoje letne obveznosti iz davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in v katerem davčna uprava sprejme napoved, v kateri je obdavčljivi dohodek določen z navedeno metodo.
Consequently, if it can be established that the tax treatment afforded to LuxOpCo as a result of the contested tax ruling confers a favourable treatment on that taxpayer that is unavailable to other corporate taxpayers, it can be concluded that the contested tax ruling derogates from that system.
Zato bi morala biti na podlagi kakršnih koli informacij, s katerimi so bile pozneje postavljene pod vprašaj odločilne domneve, na katerih je temeljilo zadevno vnaprejšnje davčno stališče, bodisi izvedena revizija vnaprejšnjega davčnega stališča bodisi bi morala luksemburška davčna uprava zavrniti davčno napoved, ki je temeljila na metodi določanja transfernih cen, potrjeni v vnaprejšnjem davčnem stališču, v več kot osemletnem obdobju, v katerem jo je družba LuxOpCo uporabljala za določanje svoje obveznosti iz davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu.
Luxembourg and Amazon argue that, in order to determine whether LuxOpCo has been selectively favoured as a result of the contested tax ruling, its fiscal treatment by the Luxembourg tax administration should be compared only to other Luxembourg corporate taxpayers forming part of a multinational corporate group.
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV
They argue that the contested tax ruling concerns transfer pricing and, since only multinational corporate groups are confronted with pricing cross-border intra-group transactions, companies belonging to such groups are in a different factual and legal situation to independent companies.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Luksemburg s kršenjem člena 107(1) PDEU in člena 108(3) PDEU z zadevnim vnaprejšnjim davčnim stališčem družbi LuxOpCo in skupini Amazon nezakonito dodelil državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ter da je vsako leto sprejel napoved za odmero davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki je temeljila na navedenem vnaprejšnjem davčnem stališču.
With that argument, Luxembourg and Amazon advocate for a reference system limited to Article 164(3) LIR, the provision of Luxembourg tax law that was considered to lay down the arm's length principle for the purposes of pricing cross-border intra-group transactions during the relevant period.
Luksemburg mora navedeno pomoč v skladu s členom 16 Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 izterjati od družbe LuxOpCo, če ta ne vrne celotnega zneska pomoči, pa mora preostali znesek izterjati od skupine Amazon ali enega od njenih naslednikov ali od družb iz te skupine –
The Commission does not agree that the reference system should be so limited in the present case.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
First, companies belonging to a multinational corporate group do not need to resort to transfer pricing to assess their taxable income in all instances.
Člen 1
Where a group company transacts with non-associated companies (either independent standalone companies or companies forming part of another multinational corporate group) its profit from those transactions reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market, just like for independent companies transacting between themselves.
Vnaprejšnje davčno stališče z dne 6. novembra 2003, s katerim je Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg potrdilo metodo določanja transfernih cen, ki jo je predlagala družba Amazon.com, Inc., in ki je na eni strani družbi Amazon EU S.à.r.l. omogočilo, da določi svojo obveznost iz davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu v obdobju 2006–2014, na drugi strani pa je omogočilo poznejše sprejetje letnih napovedi za odmero davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb na podlagi navedenega stališča, pomeni državno pomoč, ki jo je s kršitvijo člena 108(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije nezakonito dodelil Luksemburg in ki je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom v smislu člena 107(1) navedene pogodbe.
It is only in those instances where a group company transacts with associated companies that it must estimate the prices it charges for those intra-group transactions.
Člen 2
However, the fact that a group company might resort to transacting with associated companies and, in those situations where it does, it must resort to transfer pricing does not mean that group companies are in a different factual and legal situation to other taxpayers for corporate income tax purposes in Luxembourg.
Luksemburg mora od družbe Amazon EU S.à.r.l. izterjati nezdružljivo in nezakonito pomoč iz člena 1.
Second, profit derived from transactions concluded between unrelated companies and profit derived from intra-group transactions between related companies are taxed in the same way and under the same corporate income tax rate in Luxembourg.
Zneski, ki jih z izterjavo iz odstavka 1 ni mogoče izterjati od družbe Amazon EU S.à.r.l., se izterjajo od skupine Amazon ali enega od njenih naslednikov.
The fact that profit has been generated from an intra-group transaction that is subject to Article 164(3) LIR does not mean it is subject to special exemptions or a different tax rate.
Zneski, ki jih je treba izterjati, vključujejo obresti od datuma, ko so bili dani na voljo upravičencem, do datuma njihove dejanske izterjave.
Consequently, the different manner in which the taxable profit is necessarily arrived at in the case of controlled and uncontrolled transactions has no bearing for the determination of the reference system in the present case.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi obrestnoobrestnega računa v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004.
Since the profit of all corporate taxpayers is taxed in the same manner under the Luxembourg corporate income tax system, without any distinction as to its origin, all corporate taxpayers should be considered to be in a similar factual and legal situation.
Člen 3
Third, all corporate taxpayers, whether they operate independently on the market or form part of a multinational corporate group, are taxed on the same taxable event – the generation of profit – and at the same tax rates under the Luxembourg corporate income tax system.
Izterjava pomoči iz člena 1 je takojšnja in učinkovita.
By limiting the reference system only to companies forming part of a multinational corporate group, an artificial distinction is introduced between integrated companies and standalone companies based on their company structure which the Luxembourg corporate income tax system does, in general, not take into account when taxing the profits of companies falling within its tax jurisdiction.
Luksemburg zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvede v štirih mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu.
Fourth, by virtue of Article 164(3) LIR, profit derived from intra-group transactions is in fact determined in exactly the same manner as income derived from transactions between unrelated companies: while the latter depend on prices negotiated on the market, the former depend on market conform prices, so that in both instances the profit being taxed is ultimately determined (directly or indirectly) by the market.
Člen 4
The purpose of Article 164(3) LIR is therefore to align the tax treatment of transactions concluded between associated group companies with the tax treatment of transactions concluded between independent companies, so that the former are treated no more favourably than the latter under the Luxembourg corporate income tax system.
Luksemburg Komisijo sproti obvešča o napredku nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvajanje tega sklepa, do dokončne izterjave pomoči iz člena 1.
Fifth, accepting the argument that the reference system should be limited to companies belonging to a multinational corporate group simply because Article 164(3) LIR only applies to those companies would open the door to Member States to adopt fiscal measures that blatantly favour multinationals over independent companies.
Na zahtevo Komisije takoj predloži vse informacije o že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepih za uskladitev s tem sklepom.
Companies belonging to a multinational corporate group can and do engage in the same activities as independent companies and those two types of companies can and do compete with one another.
Člen 5
Since both types of companies are taxed on their total taxable profit at the same corporate income tax rate under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system, any measure allowing the former to reduce its taxable base upon which that tax rate is applied grants it a favourable tax treatment in the form of a reduction of its corporate income tax liability as compared to the latter, which in turn distorts competition and affects intra-EU trade.
Ta sklep je naslovljen na Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg.
Finally, the Commission does not agree with Luxembourg and Amazon that in previous decisions the Commission confirmed that the reference system must be limited to integrated companies only.
V Bruslju, 4. oktobra 2017
At the outset, the Commission recalls that it is not bound by its decisional-practice and that each potential aid measure must be assessed on the basis of its own merits under the objective criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, so that even if a contrary decisional practice were shown to exist, that could not affect the findings of the present decision.
Za Komisijo
In any event, in those decisions the national tax schemes giving rise to aid were set up in a way that those schemes already differentiated between different categories of integrated companies.
Članica Komisije
That does not mean, however, that those schemes were not also selective from that perspective.
Če ni navedeno drugače, je Komisija ugodila vsem prošnjam Luksemburga in skupine Amazon za podaljšanje roka.
Amazon also argued that to demonstrate selectivity in the present case, the Commission must compare the treatment of LuxOpCo as a result of the contested tax ruling against the tax ruling practice of the Luxembourg tax administration, in general, and the 97 rulings it identified that allegedly endorse the profit split method, in particular.
Zaupne informacije.