natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Company F also argued that the reference to the Åland Decision of the European Commission is questionable since the Authority is not bound by the decisions of the Commission, but must assess the measures independently and solely based on the provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Družba F je trdila tudi, da je sklicevanje na odločbo Evropske komisije o Ålandskih otokih dvomljivo, saj Nadzornega organa odločbe Komisije ne zavezujejo, ampak mora ukrepe oceniti neodvisno in izključno na podlagi določb Sporazuma EGP.
Company F also argued that the tax measures are not linked to a given undertaking but to a particular function and are, therefore, not selective.
Družba F je trdila tudi, da davčni ukrepi niso povezani z določenim podjetjem, temveč so povezani z določeno funkcijo, zato niso selektivni.
Company F considered that selectivity does not relate to the economic strength of the undertaking and the question of whether it could establish a captive insurance company was wrongly argued both by the Authority and by the Commission in the Åland case.
Menila je, da selektivnost ni povezana z gospodarsko močjo podjetja ter da sta Nadzorni organ in Komisija v zadevi Ålandski otoki napačno obravnavala vprašanje ustanovitve lastne zavarovalnice.
Company F argued that in the latter case the Commission had not fully assessed selectivity as it did not assess whether the measures fell within the nature and logic of the tax system.
Trdila je, da Komisija v slednjem primeru ni v celoti ocenila selektivnosti, saj ni ocenjevala, ali so ukrepi skladni z naravo in logiko davčnega sistema.
Referring in this context to the Commission’s Decision in the Irish Holding Company Regime case [13], Company F argued that the Authority should have assessed whether captive insurance companies are factually and legally in a similar situation and come to the conclusion that the specific regulatory provisions applicable to them (in particular Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [14] which provides a definition of captive insurance companies, as well as the Solvency II Directive) prove that they are not.
V zvezi s tem se je sklicevala na odločbo Komisije v zvezi z irskim režimom holdinške družbe [13] in trdila, da bi Nadzorni organ moral oceniti, ali so lastne zavarovalnice dejansko in pravno v podobnem položaju, ter ugotoviti, da posebne regulativne določbe, ki veljajo zanje (zlasti Direktiva 2005/68/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [14], v kateri je lastna zavarovalnica opredeljena, in direktiva Solventnost II), dokazujejo, da niso.
With reference to the case-law of the EFTA Court, Company F argued that ‘any direct or indirect discrimination which is to be considered justified must derive from the inherent logic of the general system and result from objective conditions within that general system’.
Družba F je ob sklicevanju na sodno prakso Sodišča Efte trdila, da mora „vsaka neposredna ali posredna diskriminacija, ki naj bi se štela za utemeljeno, izhajati iz logike, ki je del splošnega sistema, in biti posledica objektivnih pogojev znotraj tega splošnega sistema“.
As secondary arguments, Company F considered that the tax measure existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Liechtenstein, and that the company has been subject to the same tax rules since its establishment in 1990.
Družba F je v drugem argumentu menila, da je davčni ukrep obstajal pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP v Lihtenštajnu in da so za družbo veljali isti davčni predpisi od njene ustanovitve leta 1990.
These rules were explicitly applicable to captive insurances companies from January 1998 and have not been substantially modified since.
Ta pravila so se za lastne zavarovalnice izrecno uporabljala od januarja 1998 in od takrat niso bila bistveno spremenjena.
Company F contended that it is only the evolution of EEA rules that has led to the tax measures applicable to captives in Liechtenstein being considered to be State aid.
Družba F je trdila, da je šele razvoj predpisov EGP privedel do tega, da se davčni ukrepi, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice v Lihtenštajnu, štejejo za državno pomoč.
The decision-making practice of the Commission from 1960 to 1990, during which time the Liechtenstein scheme was introduced, did not consider tax measures to constitute State aid.
V praksi sprejemanja odločitev Komisije v obdobju 1960–1990, v katerem je bila lihtenštajnska shema uvedena, davčni ukrepi niso pomenili državne pomoči.
Finally, referring to previous Commission decisions, some of which had considered similar tax arrangements not to constitute State aid, Company F considered that no recovery should be requested in this case because of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
Poleg tega je družba F menila, da vračilo pomoči ne bi smelo biti zahtevano v tej zadevi zaradi pravne varnosti in zavarovanja legitimnih pričakovanj, pri tem pa se je sklicevala na nekatere prejšnje odločitve Komisije, v katerih se podobna davčna ureditev ni štela za državno pomoč.
Comments from Company G
Pripombe družbe G
In letters dated 1 December 2008 and 25 May 2009, Company G expressed its surprise at the investigation given that it had trusted the legality of the Liechtenstein tax system for more than 10 years, and that to date there had been no indications that the rules applicable to captive insurance companies could be State aid.
Družba G je v dopisih z dne 1. decembra 2008 in 25. maja 2009 izrazila presenečenje zaradi preiskave, saj je več kot deset let verjela v zakonitost lihtenštajnskega davčnega sistema in do takrat ni bilo nobenega znaka, da bi predpisi, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice, lahko pomenili državno pomoč.
In its opinion, an undertaking cannot be expected to verify whether legislation in place for more than 10 years had been notified to the Authority.
Po njenem mnenju od podjetja ni mogoče pričakovati, da bo preverilo, ali je bila zakonodaja, ki velja že več kot 10 let, priglašena Nadzornemu organu.
Moreover, the retroactive payment of taxes, it said, is questionable from a legal perspective and counterproductive from an economic point of view, in particular in the context of the current financial crisis.
Poleg tega je navedla, da je plačevanje davkov za nazaj dvomljivo s pravnega stališča in kontraproduktivno z gospodarskega stališča, še posebno glede na sedanjo finančno krizo.
Company G referred also to the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
Družba G se je sklicevala tudi na načeli legitimnih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti.
Comments from Company H
Pripombe družbe H
In letters dated 17 October 2008 and 27 May 2009, Company H expressed its concern that the tax legislation in favour of captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein could be considered incompatible State aid.
Družba H je v dopisih z dne 17. oktobra 2008 in 27. maja 2009 izrazila zaskrbljenost, da bi se davčna zakonodaja v korist lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu lahko štela za nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
The company stated that it had trusted the legality of the legislation in place for more than 10 years, and it would not be realistic to require it to ensure that it is compliant with the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement.
Družba je navedla, da je zaupala v zakonitost zakonodaje, ki je veljala več kot 10 let, in da od nje ne bi bilo realistično zahtevati, naj se prepriča, ali je zakonodaja skladna s pravili o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
Recovery of taxes would violate the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, and would contravene the principle of equal treatment within the EEA at time in which the European Commission has allowed millions of euro of State aid to alleviate the financial crisis.
Izterjava davkov bi kršila načeli legitimnih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti ter nasprotovala načelu enake obravnave znotraj EGP v obdobju, ko je Evropska komisija dovolila več milijonov eurov državnih pomoči za ublažitev finančne krize.
Comments from Company I
Pripombe družbe I
Company I communicated its concern that the taxation of captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein may constitute incompatible State aid, and stressed its trust in the legislation applicable in Liechtenstein for 10 years.
Družba I je sporočila, da je zaskrbljena zaradi možnosti, da bi davčna obravnava lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu pomenila nezdružljivo državno pomoč, in poudarila, da je zaupala v zakonodajo, ki se je v Lihtenštajnu uporabljala 10 let.
This, in its opinion, justified the application of legitimate expectations and legal certainty in the context of recovery.
To po njenem mnenju utemeljuje uporabo načel legitimnih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti v okviru morebitne izterjave.
Comments from Company J
Pripombe družbe J
Company J presented its concerns regarding the possible incompatibility of the Liechtenstein taxation for captive insurance companies with the State aid rules in letters dated 13 November 2008 and 20 April 2009.
Družba J je v dopisih z dne 13. novembra 2008 in 20. aprila 2009 izrazila zaskrbljenost zaradi morebitne nezdružljivosti davčne obravnave lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu s pravili o državni pomoči.
Company J argued that special provisions for captive insurance companies in new Solvency II legislation are an indication that captives are not active on the same market, and are not subject to the same regulatory mechanisms, as other insurance companies.
Družba J je trdila, da posebne določbe za lastne zavarovalnice v novi direktivi Solventnost II kažejo na to, da lastne zavarovalnice ne delujejo na istem trgu in da se zanje ne uporabljajo isti regulativni mehanizmi kot za druge zavarovalnice.
Company J also argued that any undertaking can establish a captive insurance company and in consequence the measure is not selective.
Družba J je trdila tudi, da lahko vsako podjetje ustanovi lastno zavarovalnico, zato ukrep ni selektiven.
The company was of the view that taxing captive insurance companies ‘across the board’ on their net earnings would lead to unequal treatment of undertakings.
Družba je menila, da bi splošna obdavčitev lastnih zavarovalnic na podlagi njihovega neto dobička povzročila neenako obravnavo podjetij.
Captives, the company argued, are an instrument of self insurance and should only be taxed on their income from insurance branches liable for a legal insurance obligation in the country of the insurer.
Družba je trdila, da so lastne zavarovalnice instrument za samozavarovanje in bi jih bilo treba obdavčevati samo na podlagi njihovega dobička iz zavarovalnih panog, ki so odgovorne za predpisano obvezno zavarovanje v državi zavarovatelja.
Otherwise, it was said, undertakings that create a captive will be worse off from a tax point of view than those that do not have a captive insurance company, and choose not to insure risks which do not have to be insured by law.
Drugače bodo podjetja, ki ustanavljajo lastne zavarovalnice, z davčnega vidika v slabšem položaju kot podjetja, ki nimajo lastne zavarovalnice in ne zavarujejo tveganj, ki jih po zakonu ni treba zavarovati.
Captives take insurance policies for risks for which there is no market and income from these activities should, therefore, not be taxed.
Lastne zavarovalnice sklepajo zavarovalne police za kritje tveganj, za katere trg ne obstaja, zato dohodek od teh dejavnosti ne bi smel biti obdavčen.
The company argued that it would contradict the principle of legal certainty to expect an undertaking to question legislation that had applied for more than 10 years.
Družba je trdila, da bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti pričakovati, da bo podjetje dvomilo o zakonodaji, ki se uporablja že več kot 10 let.
It stated that it had legitimately trusted the legality of the tax measures and contended that should the Authority come to the conclusion that State aid is involved, the measures qualify as existing aid, or (alternatively) recovery would contravene fundamental principles of law.
Navedla je, da je legitimno zaupala v zakonitost davčnih ukrepov, in trdila, da če bi Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da je vključena državna pomoč, se morajo ukrepi šteti za obstoječo pomoč; v nasprotnem primeru bi bilo vračilo pomoči v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravnimi načeli.
Finally, Company J referred to the financial crisis and how it has had an impact on the assessment of State aid.
Poleg tega se je družba J sklicevala na finančno krizo in njen vpliv na ocenjevanje državne pomoči.
In its view, many of the measures adopted by several Member States of the European Union will not have a temporary character but will become permanent.
Po njenem mnenju številni ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo več držav članic Evropske unije, ne bodo začasni, temveč bodo postali stalni.
Against this background, Company J expected that the Authority will not request the amendment of the Liechtenstein tax legislation applicable to captives.
Glede na to je družba J pričakovala, da Nadzorni organ ne bo zahteval spremembe lihtenštajnske davčne zakonodaje, ki se uporablja za lastne zavarovalnice.
Comments from Company K
Pripombe družbe K
It argued that any order to repay aid would contravene the principle of legal certainty (pointing out that Liechtenstein law has a limitation period of five years for challenging tax liabilities).
Trdila je, da bi bila naložitev vračila pomoči v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti (pri čemer je opozorila, da je po lihtenštajnski zakonodaji obdobje za ugovor na davčno obveznost omejeno na pet let).
Company K explained the history of the foundation of the company, which would be tax exempted in Switzerland and only insures risks within the Company K group. It is not profit making, it insures also risks that are not or not fully covered in the insurance market and its premiums are calculated on the basis of the claims history/experience.
Družba K je razložila zgodovino ustanovitve družbe, ki bi bila oproščena davka v Švici in zavaruje samo tveganja znotraj skupine družbe K. Ne ustvarja dobička, zavaruje tudi tveganja, ki niso ali niso v celoti pokrita na zavarovalniškem trgu, njene premije pa se računajo na podlagi preteklih zahtevkov/izkušenj.
Should the Authority conclude that incompatible State aid was granted, the Company K considers that a recovery would violate the principles of legal certainty, homogeneity and legitimate expectations.
Če bi Nadzorni organ sklenil, da je bila dodeljena nezdružljiva državna pomoč, bi po mnenju družbe K vračilo pomoči kršilo načela pravne varnosti, pravne homogenosti in legitimnih pričakovanj.
COMMENTS BY THE LIECHTENSTEIN AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE LIHTENŠTAJNSKIH ORGANOV
Comments on the opening decision
Pripombe k odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka
In a letter dated 25 November 2008, the Liechtenstein authorities referred to the evolution of the assessment of State aid in the context of business taxation from the beginning of the 1980s to the issue of a notice on the application of the State aid rules to direct business taxation in 1998, and to the European Commission’s decisions in the early 2000s (for example on the Belgian coordination centres [15]).The Liechtenstein authorities argued that captive insurance companies are not active on an open market as their activities are limited to managing intra-group risks, i.e. the risks of its own corporate group.
Lihtenštajnski organi so se v dopisu z dne 25. novembra 2008 sklicevali na razvoj ocenjevanja državnih pomoči v okviru obdavčevanja družb od začetka 80. let 20. stoletja, na izdajo obvestila o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka iz leta 1998 in na odločitve Evropske komisije iz prvih let tega stoletja (na primer odločba o belgijskih centrih za usklajevanje [15]).Lihtenštajnski organi so trdili, da lastne zavarovalnice niso dejavne na odprtem trgu, ker so njihove dejavnosti omejene na upravljanje notranjih tveganj, tj. tveganj znotraj lastne skupine družb.
Any income generated by the captive insurance through transactions within the group is not ordinary income that should be subject to income taxation, as the administration of own assets does not constitute a commercial activity subject to taxation.
Dobiček, ki ga lastna zavarovalnica ustvari s transakcijami znotraj skupine, ni običajen dobiček, ki bi moral biti predmet obdavčevanja prihodka, saj upravljanje lastnih sredstev ni obdavčljiva komercialna dejavnost.
In their view, an entity that does not exercise its activity on a market in competition with other market players cannot be considered as engaging in economic activity as an undertaking [16].
Po njihovem mnenju subjekta, ki ne opravlja dejavnosti na trgu s konkuriranjem drugim tržnim akterjem, ni mogoče šteti za subjekt, ki se ukvarja z gospodarsko dejavnostjo kot podjetje [16].
Even if they were to provide services on the ‘free’ market, the Liechtenstein system ensures that the regular tax rates apply to these free market activities.
Tudi če bi ponujal storitve na „prostem“ trgu, lihtenštajnski sistem zagotavlja, da se za te dejavnosti na prostem trgu uporabljajo običajne davčne stopnje.
In the opinion of the Liechtenstein authorities, it is only to the extent that the companies engage in those ‘free’ activities that they should qualify as undertakings.
Po mnenju lihtenštajnskih organov se družbe lahko štejejo za podjetja samo toliko, kolikor se ukvarjajo s „prostimi“ dejavnostmi.
The Liechtenstein authorities argued that captive insurance companies (like reinsurance companies) constitute a separate market from direct insurance due to the risk allocation within a group, the different regulatory framework, and the management function captives undertake within the group to which they belong.
Lihtenštajnski organi so trdili, da lastne zavarovalnice (kot pozavarovalnice) pomenijo trg, ki je ločen od trga neposrednih zavarovanj, in sicer zaradi razporeditve tveganj znotraj skupine, drugačnega regulativnega okvira in upravljavske funkcije, ki jo lastne zavarovalnice opravljajo znotraj skupine, ki ji pripadajo.
Captive insurance companies only insure their own group’s risks (where there is no market or where costs are too high) and not the risks of third parties.
Lastne zavarovalnice zavarujejo samo tveganje lastne skupine (kadar trg ne obstaja ali kadar so stroški previsoki), ne pa tudi tveganj tretjih strani.
As far as selectivity is concerned, with reference to the Åland captive insurance system and the Irish Company Holding Regime, the Liechtenstein authorities submitted that the tax regime applicable to captive insurance companies is not materially selective.
Lihtenštajnski organi so v zvezi s selektivnostjo ob sklicevanju na sistem Ålandskih otokov za lastne zavarovalnice in irski režim holdinške družbe navedli, da davčna ureditev, ki se uporablja za lastne zavarovalnice, ni materialno selektivna.
This is because the conditions for these companies are horizontal in nature and could be achieved by any undertaking, i.e. no specific economic strength is required from undertakings to set up a captive insurance company and it, therefore, applies to all sorts of companies.
Razlog za to so pogoji, ki so za te družbe po naravi horizontalni, doseže pa jih lahko vsako podjetje, tj. podjetje ne potrebuje posebne gospodarske moči za ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice, zato se ureditev uporablja za vse vrste družb.
On that basis any legal person, irrespective of the sector of activity or size of operations, could qualify for the tax reduction through ownership of a captive insurance company.
Na podlagi tega lahko vsaka pravna oseba ne glede na sektor dejavnosti ali velikost poslovanja izpolnjuje pogoje za zmanjšanje davka z lastništvom lastne zavarovalnice.
In line with the Gil Insurance [17] case-law, the Liechtenstein authorities argued in the alternative that the measures are justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system, arguing that: ‘What matters is whether the apparent exception is actually in line with the internal logic of the measure. […] A tax measure is specific only if it unreasonably discriminates between situations being legally and factually comparable in the light of objectives set by the tax system.’ Under Liechtenstein law, captive insurances may be defined as a limited-purpose insurance entity established with the specific objective of financing risks emanating from their corporate group: ‘Hence, it is an in-house self-insurance vehicle. The captive insurance is made out of the own means of its corporate groups. Hence, the captive insurance follows the principle that the coverage of liabilities out of own means should be treated differently for tax purposes.’
Lihtenštajnski organi so v skladu s sodno prakso v zadevi Gil Insurance [17] trdili, da v nasprotnem primeru ukrepe utemeljujeta narava in splošna shema davčnega sistema: „Pomembno je, ali je navidezna izjema dejansko v skladu z notranjo logiko ukrepa. […] Davčni ukrep je poseben samo, če nerazumno razlikuje med položaji, ki so pravno in dejansko primerljivi glede na cilje, ki jih določa davčni sistem.“ Po lihtenštajnski zakonodaji je lastne zavarovalnice mogoče opredeliti kot zavarovalniške subjekte z omejenim namenom, ki so bili ustanovljeni s posebnim namenom financiranja tveganj, ki izhajajo iz njihove skupine družb: „Gre torej za notranji instrument samozavarovanja. Lastna zavarovalnica se ustvari iz lastnih sredstev njenih skupin družb. Tako sledi načelu, da je treba kritje obveznosti iz lastnih sredstev za davčne namene drugače obravnavati.“
Furthermore, the Liechtenstein authorities highlighted the different treatment of captive insurance companies in comparison with conventional insurance companies by reference to Community/EEA law examples under the reinsurance directive and the Solvency II directive.
Poleg tega so lihtenštajnski organi opozorili na različno obravnavanje lastnih zavarovalnic in običajnih zavarovalnic, pri čemer so se sklicevali na primere zakonodaje Skupnosti/EGP v okviru direktive o pozavarovanju in direktive Solventnost II.
These, it is said, take note of the specific nature of captive insurance and reinsurance undertakings.
Navedli so, da se v teh primerih upošteva posebna narava lastnih zavarovalnic in pozavarovalnic.
They argued that it is acknowledged that as those undertakings cover only risks associated with the industrial or commercial group to which they belong, account is taken of their specific (and different) position.
Glede na njihove trditve ta podjetja krijejo samo tveganja, ki so povezana z industrijsko ali komercialno skupino, ki ji pripadajo, zato se v zakonodaji upošteva njihov posebni (in drugačni) položaj.
Finally (in the alternative), the Liechtenstein authorities considered that the 1997 Tax Act constitutes existing aid because at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, but subsequently became aid due to the evolution of EEA law.
Poleg tega so lihtenštajnski organi (alternativno) menili, da davčni zakon iz leta 1997 pomeni obstoječo pomoč, saj ob začetku veljavnosti ni pomenil pomoči, je pa pozneje postal pomoč zaradi razvoja zakonodaje EGP.
If the Authority characterises the measures as new aid, they argued that there are sufficient grounds for not recovering the aid.
Če bi Nadzorni organ ukrepe označil kot novo pomoč, po njihovem mnenju obstajajo zadostni razlogi za to, da se pomoč ne vrača.
The second is legal certainty, since at the time Liechtenstein joined the EEA in 1995, the Commission’s State aid practice (which is part of the acquis communautaire) did not consider taxation of intra-group activities to be a matter subject to the State aid rules.
Drug razlog pa je pravna varnost, saj praksa Komisije v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi (ki je del pravnega reda EU) ob pridružitvi Lihtenštajna k EGP leta 1995 obdavčevanja dejavnosti znotraj skupine ni štela za predmet pravil o državni pomoči.
Comments on third party submissions
Pripombe o dopisih tretjih strani
The Liechtenstein authorities stressed that nearly all captive insurance companies operating in Liechtenstein submitted comments during the formal investigation, reflecting the importance of the issue.
Lihtenštajnski organi so poudarili, da so skoraj vse lastne zavarovalnice, ki delujejo v Lihtenštajnu, predložile pripombe med formalnim postopkom preiskave, kar kaže na pomembnost tega vprašanja.