natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They emphasised that the decision to open a formal investigation came as a surprise to the companies since Liechtenstein’s tax regime had been adopted more than 10 years ago.
Poudarili so tudi, da je odločitev o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave družbe presenetila, saj je bila lihtenštajnska davčna ureditev sprejeta pred več kot desetimi leti.
Agreeing with the comments submitted by third parties, the Liechtenstein authorities argued that:
Lihtenštajnski organi so se strinjali s pripombami tretjih strani in trdili:
Captives do not qualify as undertakings
Lastne zavarovalnice niso podjetja
The Liechtenstein authorities considered that the comments submitted by Company B provided a good overview of captive insurance operations.
Lihtenštajnski organi so menili, da pripombe družbe B zagotavljajo dober pregled nad delovanjem lastnih zavarovalnic.
They agree, in particular, that there is no ‘liquid insurance market’ for all of the activities of captives.
Še zlasti se strinjajo, da ne obstaja „likviden zavarovalniški trg“ za vse dejavnosti lastnih zavarovalnic.
In this context the Liechtenstein authorities referred to an International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) Captive Issues Paper stating that:
V zvezi s tem so se sklicevali na dokument Mednarodnega združenja zavarovalnih nadzornikov (IAIS) o vprašanjih v zvezi z lastnimi zavarovalnicami, v katerem je navedeno:
‘Certain types of risk such as sensitive product liability risks, environmental impairment, pharmaceutical liability and selected professional indemnity, regardless of the claims history, are frequently either extremely difficult or even impossible to place in traditional markets. Alternatively they demand either high premiums or unacceptable terms and conditions even though the insured may have an acceptable claims history.’
„Nekatere vrste tveganj, ki so na primer povezana z odgovornostjo za občutljive proizvode, okoljsko škodo, farmacevtsko odgovornostjo in poklicno odgovornostjo v zvezi z nekaterimi poklici, ne glede na zgodovino zahtevkov, je pogosto izjemno težko ali celo nemogoče umestiti na tradicionalne trge ali pa se zahtevajo visoke premije ali postavijo nesprejemljivi pogoji, čeprav ima zavarovanec morda sprejemljivo zgodovino zahtevkov.“
The Liechtenstein authorities reiterated that all captives established in Liechtenstein are confined to managing intra-group risks only.
Lihtenštajnski organi so ponovili, da je dejavnost vseh lastnih zavarovalnic s sedežem v Lihtenštajnu omejena samo na upravljanje tveganj znotraj skupine.
Further, the risks insured by captives are often not transferable to other commercial insurers.
Poleg tega tveganj, ki jih zavarujejo lastne zavarovalnice, pogosto ni mogoče prenesti na druge komercialne zavarovalnice.
Captives are therefore in a position to cover risks for which the traditional insurance market does not offer economically viable solutions.
Lastne zavarovalnice imajo tako možnost pokrivanja tveganj, za katera tradicionalni zavarovalniški trg ne ponuja ekonomsko sprejemljivih rešitev.
In addition, captives differ considerably from direct insurance companies as the latter insure many sorts of risks and therefore hold a risk pool to balance claims.
Poleg tega se lastne zavarovalnice znatno razlikujejo od neposrednih zavarovalnic, saj slednje zavarujejo številne vrste tveganj in imajo zato skupino tveganja, s katero lahko uravnotežijo zahtevke.
A captive on the other hand only insures its own companies’ risks and is not able to balance those risks.
Po drugi strani lastna zavarovalnica zavaruje samo tveganja lastnih družb in teh tveganj ne more uravnotežiti.
The Liechtenstein authorities argue, therefore, that the captive insurance market is distinct from conventional insurance market operations and that captive insurances do not compete with insurance companies.
Lihtenštajnski organi zato trdijo, da se trg lastnih zavarovalnic razlikuje od običajnih dejavnosti na zavarovalniškem trgu in da lastne zavarovalnice ne konkurirajo zavarovalnicam.
Reference was also made to Court of Justice case-law concluding that an entity which does not exercise its activity on a market ‘in competition with other market players’ cannot be considered as operating an economic activity as an undertaking, and to the Authority’s decision in the Norwegian Road Administration case which — it is argued — shows that entities engaged only in in-house activities are not undertakings as they do not engage in economic activities.
Sklicujejo se tudi na sodno prakso Sodišča, v kateri je bilo odločeno, da subjekta, ki ne opravlja svoje dejavnosti na trgu, „na katerem konkurira drugim akterjem na trgu“, ni mogoče šteti za subjekt, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost kot podjetje, ter na odločbo Nadzornega organa v zadevi v zvezi z Norveško upravo za javne ceste, ki – kot trdijo lihtenštajnski organi – kaže, da subjekti, ki opravljajo samo dejavnosti znotraj družbe, niso podjetja, ker ne opravljajo gospodarskih dejavnosti.
The tax treatment of captives constitutes a general measure
Davčna obravnava lastnih zavarovalnic pomeni splošni ukrep
The Liechtenstein authorities argued that the tax treatment of captives is not materially selective as it is an option available to all and does not require a certain economic strength.
Lihtenštajnski organi so trdili, da davčna obravnava lastnih zavarovalnic ni materialno selektivna, saj je ta možnost dostopna vsem in ne zahteva določene gospodarske moči.
The tax measures are not limited to certain sectors, certain types of companies, or certain parts of the Liechtenstein territory — there are also no restrictions regarding turnover, size, the number of employees or a necessity to be part of a multinational group.
Davčni ukrepi niso omejeni na določene sektorje, določene vrste družb ali določene dele lihtenštajnskega ozemlja – prav tako ni nobenih omejitev glede prometa, velikosti, števila zaposlenih ali zahteve, da mora biti družba del mednarodne skupine.
They argue, therefore, that their tax provisions for captive insurance companies are not materially selective.
Zato trdijo, da njihove davčne določbe za lastne zavarovalnice niso materialno selektivne.
The Liechtenstein authorities referred to the European Commission’s Decisions regarding the Åland Islands captive insurance tax system, the Irish Company Holding Regime, the Spanish reduced tax from intangible assets, and the Dutch reduced tax on revenue from intra-group loans (Groepsrentebox) [18], in order to support the claim that the taxation of captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein is not materially selective.
Lihtenštajnski organi so se sklicevali na odločbe Evropske komisije v zvezi z davčnim sistemom Ålandskih otokov za lastne zavarovalnice, irskim režimom holdinške družbe, španskim zmanjšanjem davkov od neopredmetenih sredstev in nizozemskim zmanjšanjem davkov na prihodke od posojil znotraj skupine (Groepsrentebox) [18], da bi utemeljili trditev, da obdavčevanje lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu ni materialno selektivno.
The Dutch decision was quoted as follows:
Odločba o Nizozemski se je navajala, kot sledi:
‘With respect to debt financing activities, related companies are not in a comparable legal and factual situation as unrelated companies. The reason is that related companies are not engaged in a merely commercial transaction, unlike unrelated companies, when they try to obtain loan or equity financing within the group. The parent and the subsidiary share the same interest, which is not the case of a commercial transaction with a third party provider of finance, where each party tries to maximise its profits at the expense of the other.’
„Kar zadeva dolžniško financiranje, povezane družbe niso v pravnem in dejanskem položaju, primerljivem s položajem nepovezanih družb. Razlog je ta, da povezane družbe v nasprotju z nepovezanimi družbami ne izvajajo izključno komercialnega posla, kadar skušajo znotraj skupine pridobiti lastniško financiranje ali financiranje s posojili. Matična in odvisna družba imata enake interese, kar pa ne drži pri komercialnem poslu s tretjim financerjem, kjer vsaka stranka skuša maksimirati svoj dobiček na račun druge.“
Justification by the nature and general scheme of the system
Utemeljitev z naravo in splošno shemo sistema
Even if the Authority were to consider the measures at stake to be materially selective, the Liechtenstein authorities argue that they are, in any event, justified by the nature and general scheme of the Liechtenstein tax scheme.
Tudi če bi Nadzorni organ menil, da so zadevni ukrepi materialno selektivni, lihtenštajnski organi trdijo, da so kljub temu utemeljeni zaradi narave in splošne sheme lihtenštajnskega davčnega sistema.
In doing so, they agree with the views expressed by third parties on this point.
S tem se strinjajo s stališči, ki so jih v zvezi s tem izrazile tretje strani.
The Liechtenstein authorities supported arguments relating to the definition and treatment of captive insurance companies under the EU Reinsurance and Solvency II Directives, claiming that captive insurance should be distinguished from classical insurance business.
Lihtenštajnski organi so podprli argumente v zvezi z opredelitvijo in obravnavanjem lastnih zavarovalnic v skladu z direktivo EU o pozavarovanju in direktivo Solventnost II, pri čemer so trdili, da bi bilo treba lastne zavarovalnice razlikovati od običajnega zavarovalništva.
The Liechtenstein authorities agreed that different treatment of the captives is justified given the limited area of operation of captives and their specific intra-group nature.
Strinjali so se, da je drugačna obravnava lastnih zavarovalnic upravičena glede na njihovo omejeno področje poslovanja in posebno naravo delovanja znotraj skupine.
No distortion of competition and no effect on trade between Contracting Parties
Ni izkrivljanja konkurence in vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami
The Liechtenstein authorities concurred with Company A RE that the services provided by captives are not tradable since there is no ‘free market solution’ available for some risks.
Lihtenštajnski organi so se strinjali s družbo A RE, da storitev, ki jih ponujajo lastne zavarovalnice, ni mogoče tržiti, ker za nekatera tveganja ni na voljo „rešitve na prostem trgu“.
Consequently, the measures in question neither distort competition nor affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Posledično zadevni ukrepi ne izkrivljajo konkurence in ne vplivajo na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
If aid is present it is existing aid
Če je pomoč prisotna, gre za obstoječo pomoč
The Liechtenstein authorities argued that the measures in question should be regarded as existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Part I and Article l(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3 if they are to be characterised as State aid at all.
Lihtenštajnski organi so trdili, da bi bilo treba zadevne ukrepe šteti za obstoječo pomoč v smislu člena 1(1) dela I in člena 1(b)(v) dela II Protokola 3, če bi jih bilo sploh mogoče označiti kot državno pomoč.
In doing so, they again shared the opinion of third parties on that point.
Pri tem so se znova strinjali s stališči tretjih strani do tega vprašanja.
They argued that captives have been taxed at a reduced capital tax of 0,1 % since 1989 before any specific legislation was enacted for captive insurance companies.
Trdili so, da so se lastne zavarovalnice obdavčevale po znižani davčni stopnji 0,1 % od leta 1989, preden je bila sprejeta kakršna koli posebna zakonodaja za lastne zavarovalnice.
Further, the Liechtenstein authorities supported arguments that the tax measures became aid as a result of the evolution of the EEA Agreement.
Poleg tega so lihtenštajnski organi podprli argumente, da so davčni ukrepi postali pomoč zaradi razvoja Sporazuma EGP.
Agreeing with Company F, the Liechtenstein authorities considered that the evolution which took place at the end of the 1990s occurred after the specific measures relating to captive insurance companies were introduced by the Act of 18 December 1997.
Strinjali so se z družbo F, da je do razvoja ob koncu 90. let 20. stoletja prišlo po tem, ko so bili z zakonom z dne 18. decembra 1997 uvedeni posebni ukrepi v zvezi z lastnimi zavarovalnicami.
Recovery of aid would be incompatible with the general principles of Community law
Vračilo pomoči ne bi bilo združljivo s splošnimi načeli zakonodaje Skupnosti
Agreeing with Company A and Company F’s statements, the Liechtenstein authorities submitted that the captives could not have anticipated that the measures, when adopted in 1997, could be State aid given the similarities between their position and cases on intra-group activities.
Lihtenštajnski organi so se strinjali z izjavami družb A in F ter navedli, da lastne zavarovalnice glede na podobnosti med njihovim položajem in zadevami o dejavnostih znotraj skupin niso mogle predvideti, da bi lahko bili ukrepi ob sprejetju leta 1997 državna pomoč.
All interested parties claim that there were no indications at the time that any of the Authority’s preliminary findings were likely, or foreseeable.
Vse zainteresirane strani trdijo, da takrat ni bilo nobenega znaka, da bi bila katera od predhodnih ugotovitev Nadzornega organa verjetna ali predvidljiva.
In line with the statements of all interested parties, the Liechtenstein authorities also expressed their opinion that recovery would be in contravention of the principle of legal certainty.
V skladu z izjavami vseh zainteresiranih strani so tudi lihtenštajnski organi menili, da bi bilo vračilo pomoči v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti.
The fundamental requirement of legal certainty is to ensure that the application of European Union/EEA law is certain and foreseeable.
Temeljna zahteva pravne varnosti je zagotoviti, da je uporaba zakonodaje Evropske unije/EGP zanesljiva in predvidljiva.
It is also argued that this necessity must be enforced all the more strictly where there are financial consequences.
Dejali so tudi, da je to zahtevo treba toliko strožje izvajati, če ima lahko finančne posledice.
It is submitted that when Liechtenstein joined the EEA Agreement in 1995 the acquis communautaire (including the Commission’s State aid decision practice) did not designate the taxation of intra-group activities as State aid, and that there were no developments between 1995 and 1997 (when the measures were adopted) to suggest that this position would change.
Opozorili so, da ob pridružitvi Lihtenštajna k Sporazumu EGP leta 1995 v pravnem redu Skupnosti (vključno s prakso glede odločitev Komisije o državnih pomočeh) obdavčevanje dejavnosti znotraj skupin ni bilo določeno kot državna pomoč, med letoma 1995 in 1997 (ko so bili ukrepi sprejeti) pa ni bilo nobenih sprememb, ki bi nakazovale spremembo tega stališča.
Presence of State resources
Prisotnost državnih virov
The aid measures must be granted by the State or through State resources.
Ukrepe pomoči mora dodeliti država ali pa morajo biti dodeljeni iz državnih sredstev.
While the capital tax rate in Liechtenstein is currently set at 0,2 %, captive insurance companies are subject to a reduced rate of 0,1 % (and 0,075 % for capital exceeding CHF 50 million and 0,05 % for capital in excess of CHF 100 million).
Medtem ko je stopnja davka na kapital v Lihtenštajnu trenutno 0,2 %, se za lastne zavarovalnice uporablja znižana stopnja 0,1 % (in 0,075 %, če kapital presega 50 milijonov CHF, ter 0,05 %, če kapital presega 100 milijonov CHF).
Captive insurance companies are also fully exempted from payment of income tax and the coupon tax.
Lastne zavarovalnice so tudi v celoti oproščene plačila davka na dohodek in davka na obresti od kuponskih obveznic.
The granting of a full or partial tax exemption involves a loss of tax revenues for the State which is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal (tax) expenditure [19].
Dodelitev popolne ali delne davčne oprostitve vključuje davčno izgubo za državo, ki je enaka porabi državnih sredstev v obliki fiskalnih (davčnih) izdatkov [19].
State aid can only be granted to undertakings that are engaged in economic activity.
Državna pomoč se lahko dodeli samo podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo z gospodarsko dejavnostjo.
According to the European Court of Justice, the notion of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87 EC (now Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which corresponds to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, encompasses ‘every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed’ [20].
Po navedbah Sodišča EU pojem podjetja v smislu člena 87 ES (zdaj člena 107 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije), ki ustreza členu 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, zajema „vse subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na njihovo pravno obliko in njihov način financiranja“ [20].
The Court has further ‘consistently held that any activity consisting in offering goods or services on a given market is an economic activity’ [21].Providing insurance is a service, which in principle is an economic activity [22].
Sodišče je poleg tega dosledno menilo, da „je vsaka dejavnost, ki je sestavljena iz ponujanja blaga ali storitev na danem trgu, gospodarska dejavnost“ [21].Ponujanje zavarovanja je storitev, ki je načelno gospodarska dejavnost [22].
Captive insurance companies offer insurance services for a premium on a given market.
Lastne zavarovalnice ponujajo zavarovalniške storitve za premijo na danem trgu.
The fact that their clients are restricted only to undertakings of the same group to which they belong does not affect this conclusion.
Dejstvo, da so njihove stranke omejene samo na podjetja iz iste skupine, ki ji pripadajo same, te ugotovitve ne spremeni.
The undertakings of the group to which the captive belongs have chosen to purchase insurance from another company within its group which provides such services instead of purchasing from a third party insurance company.
Podjetja iz skupine, ki ji pripada lastna zavarovalnica, so se odločila za nakup zavarovanja od druge družbe znotraj svoje skupine, ki ponuja takšne storitve, namesto da bi jih kupila od tretje zavarovalnice.
As referred to below, the Authority is of the view, therefore, that the services provided by captive insurers are an alternative to purchasing insurance from a third party.
Kot je navedeno v nadaljevanju, Nadzorni organ zato meni, da so storitve, ki jih ponujajo lastne zavarovalnice, alternativa nakupu zavarovanja od tretje strani.
The fact that captive insurance companies supply demand for insurance from certain undertakings is sufficient to conclude that they offer their services on the market.
Dejstvo, da lastne zavarovalnice zadovoljujejo povpraševanje posameznih podjetij po zavarovanju, je zadosten razlog za ugotovitev, da svoje storitve ponujajo na trgu.
By establishing a captive, the insurance of these risks is ‘captive’ to one company of the group, which means that none of the other insurance companies active in the market will be able to compete for the insurance of the risks of the group.
Z ustanovitvijo lastne zavarovalnice je zavarovanje teh tveganj „lastno“ eni družbi iz skupine, kar pomeni, da nobena druga zavarovalnica, ki je dejavna na trgu, ne bo mogla konkurirati za zavarovanje tveganj skupine.
The insurance of these risks would normally be undertaken by choosing another commercial provider but here the service is provided by the captive insurance company formed by the group instead.
Ta tveganja bi se običajno zavarovala z izbiro drugega komercialnega ponudnika, vendar tukaj namesto tega storitev zagotavlja lastna zavarovalnica, ki jo je ustanovila skupina.
A captive insurance company is established as a separate legal entity in Liechtenstein and set up like any other company.
Lastna zavarovalnica je ustanovljena kot ločena pravna oseba v Lihtenštajnu in je oblikovana kot vsaka druga družba.
The services it provides are paid for, risk is transferred to it on an arm’s length basis, it keeps separate accounts and is liable to tax under national law.
Storitve, ki jih zagotavlja, so plačane, tveganje se nanjo prenese na čisto poslovni podlagi, vodi lastne računovodske izkaze in je davčna zavezanka v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo.
Captive insurance companies are indeed subject to taxation in Liechtenstein in the first place as they are undertakings that are engaged in economic activity within the jurisdiction.
Lastne zavarovalnice so dejansko predmet obdavčevanja v Lihtenštajnu, v prvi vrsti zato, ker so podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost na ozemlju te države.
Forming a separate company is a deliberate choice on the part of companies which decide to form captives, and it is common practice to locate the captive in a low tax jurisdiction in order to benefit from lower rates of taxation.
Oblikovanje ločene družbe je namerna izbira družb, ki se odločijo za ustanovitev lastnih zavarovalnic, in običajna praksa je, da se lastna zavarovalnica ustanovi v državi z nizko davčno stopnjo, da se izkoristijo nižje davčne obveznosti.
If a new, separate company was not created, and the risks were self-insured within the existing company structure, generally speaking, the cost benefit from deciding not to pay commercial insurers would merely be reflected in lower costs — and therefore higher profits, paid at the normal rate within the company’s home tax jurisdiction.
Če nova ločena družba ne bi bila ustvarjena, tveganja pa bi bila samozavarovana znotraj obstoječe strukture družbe, bi se, splošno rečeno, prihranek pri stroških zaradi odločitve, da se zavarovanja ne plača komercialni zavarovalnici, odrazil v nižjih stroških in posledično večjem dobičku, na katerega se plača davek po običajni stopnji na območju pod davčno pristojnostjo države sedeža družbe.
Creating a company and locating it offshore means that the insurance services can be provided outside the company’s home tax jurisdiction(s), enabling the group to benefit (among other ways [23]) from lower taxation on the profits made from the decision to self-insure [24].During the formal investigation some of the parties involved argued that captives are not undertakings, firstly, because they only provide insurance services ‘in-house’, and, secondly, because the services provided are not offered by the open market mainly as they concern common high frequency risks commonly retained by companies, or complex, high value risks that cannot be insured on the market or can only be insured at prohibitive cost.
Ustanovitev offshore družbe pomeni, da je mogoče zavarovalniške storitve ponujati zunaj davčne pristojnosti države sedeža družbe, kar skupini omogoča, da ima korist (med drugim [23] od nižjega obdavčevanja dobička, pridobljenega zaradi odločitve o samozavarovanju [24].Med formalnim postopkom preiskave so nekatere vpletene strani trdile, da lastne zavarovalnice niso podjetja, prvič, ker ponujajo zavarovanje samo „znotraj skupine“, in drugič, ker ponujene storitve niso na voljo na odprtem trgu, predvsem ker zadevajo običajna in zelo pogosta tveganja, ki jih družbe po navadi zadržijo, ali zapletena tveganja z veliko vrednostjo, ki jih ni mogoče zavarovati na trgu ali jih je mogoče zavarovati samo po nesorazmerno visoki ceni.
‘In-house’ provisions
„Notranje“ zagotavljanje storitev
As stated above, specific references were made during the investigation to the Authority’s decision concerning the Norwegian Road Administration Møre and Romsdal District Office.
Kakor je bilo navedeno zgoraj, so bila med preiskavo podana natančna sklicevanja na odločbo Nadzornega organa v zvezi z Norveško upravo za javne ceste, okrajnim uradom Møre in Romsdal.
The Norwegian Road Administration was reorganised in 1995 and split into district offices, each with a production department responsible for construction and maintenance of roads, tunnels and bridges, and an administrative department in charge of ordering works and administering public tenders.
Norveška uprava za javne ceste je bila preoblikovana leta 1995, ko je bila razdeljena na okrajne urade, od katerih ima vsak proizvodni oddelek, odgovoren za gradnjo in vzdrževanje cest, predorov in mostov, ter upravni oddelek, odgovoren za naročanje del in upravljanje javnih naročil.