natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Certain third parties asserted during the formal investigation that the exemptions from tax in Liechtenstein are not selective as any economic undertaking is free to form a captive.
Nekatere tretje strani so med formalnim postopkom preiskave trdile, da davčne oprostitve v Lihtenštajnu niso selektivne, ker lahko vsako gospodarsko podjetje svobodno oblikuje lastno zavarovalnico.
The Authority does not concur that this is a valid legal consideration, and disagrees with the factual basis for the argument in any event.
Nadzorni organ meni, da to ni veljaven pravni element, ter se nikakor ne strinja z dejansko podlago tega argumenta.
The Authority is of the view that there are two conditions that must be fulfilled to be able to form a captive insurance company.
Nadzorni organ meni, da morata biti za oblikovanje lastne zavarovalnice izpolnjena dva pogoja.
The first is that only companies that are able to absorb the fixed costs inherent in forming a captive insurance company can benefit.
Prvi je, da imajo lahko korist samo družbe, ki lahko absorbirajo fiksne stroške, povezane z ustanovitvijo lastne zavarovalnice.
The second, more important, condition follows from the fact that forming a captive insurance company is essentially a formalised way of self insuring.
Drugi še pomembnejši pogoj izhaja iz dejstva, da je ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice pravzaprav formaliziran način samozavarovanja.
The Authority is of the view that only undertakings that have significant resources (mainly large companies) can cover the risks of self-insuring [40] and that principles of insurance mean that a certain size and diversity of operation is required in order to manage risk without use of third party cover.
Nadzorni organ meni, da lahko samo podjetja, ki imajo znatne vire (predvsem velike družbe), pokrijejo tveganja pri samozavarovanju [40] in da načela zavarovanja pomenijo, da sta potrebni določena velikost in raznolikost dejavnosti, da je mogoče tveganja upravljati brez kritja tretje strani.
This need for size and diversity is, in the Authority’s opinion, self evident, given that the smallest of companies can, depending on their activity, incur high liabilities (for example through the deterioration of fixed assets caused by accidents or fire, or through injury caused by negligently supplied products or services), which they would not be able to pay.
Ta potreba po velikosti in raznolikosti je po mnenju Nadzornega organa očitna glede na to, da lahko tudi najmanjše družbe glede na svojo dejavnost prevzamejo velike obveznosti (na primer zaradi zmanjšanja fiksnih sredstev zaradi nesreče ali požara ali zaradi poškodbe, ki je nastala zaradi malomarno dobavljenih proizvodov ali storitev), ki jih običajno ne bi mogle plačati.
In that case the Commission found that an exemption from tax on capital gains made on the disposal of shares by investors who had held at least 5 % of the investee company’s ordinary share capital for an uninterrupted period of not less than 12 months was not materially selective.
V zadevnem primeru je Komisija ugotovila, da oprostitev plačila davka na kapitalski dobiček od odsvojitve delnic vlagateljev, ki so imeli neprekinjeno najmanj 12 mesecev vsaj 5 % običajnega delniškega kapitala družbe, v katero so vlagali, ni bila materialno selektivna.
The Commission concluded that a 5 % holding requirement did not favour any undertaking in a comparable legal and factual situation in light of the objective pursued by the measure, given that this was available to undertakings no matter what their size or legal structure [43].
Komisija je ugotovila, da zahteva po lastništvu 5-odstotnega deleža ni dajala prednosti nobenemu podjetju v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju glede na cilj ukrepa, saj je bil podjetjem na voljo ne glede na njihovo velikost ali pravno strukturo [43].
The tax measure under assessment in this decision, on the other hand, applies only to a particular form of undertaking engaged in a particular form of economic activity (captive insurance companies), and in any event these are companies that can be formed only by those with sufficient resources to form such a company and to self-insure against corporate risk.
Davčni ukrep, ki se ocenjuje v tej odločbi, se po drugi strani uporablja samo za določeno obliko podjetij, ki se ukvarjajo z določeno obliko gospodarske dejavnosti (lastne zavarovalnice), in vsekakor gre za podjetja, ki jih lahko ustanovijo samo družbe z zadostnimi viri za ustanovitev takšne družbe in samozavarovanje pred tveganji v skupini.
A Spanish reduced tax on intangible assets was also cited during the investigation.
Med preiskavo so tretje strani navajale tudi špansko znižanje davkov na neopredmetena sredstva.
In this case, the Commission considered that privileged treatment of income from intangible assets derogated from the ordinary corporate taxation rules.
Komisija je v tem primeru menila, da privilegirana obravnava prihodka iz naslova neopredmetenih sredstev odstopa od običajnih pravil o obdavčevanju podjetij.
However, it concluded that the measure was not selective as it was open to any undertaking subject to corporate taxation in Spain that develops intangible assets, and any corporate tax payer (no matter what its size, legal structure or sector) in which it operates can be the beneficiary.
Kljub temu je ugotovila, da ukrep ni bil selektiven, saj je bil dostopen vsem podjetjem, ki so predmet obdavčevanja podjetij v Španiji in ki oblikujejo neopredmetena sredstva, ukrep pa je lahko uporabljala vsaka družba, ki plačuje davke (ne glede na njeno velikost, pravno strukturo ali sektor).
The Spanish authorities had provided the Commission with statistics showing that intangible assets (and the R&D activities which had preceded them) were held widely throughout all sectors of the economy, including the service sector.
Španski organi so Komisiji predložili statistične podatke, ki kažejo, da so bila neopredmetena sredstva (in dejavnosti raziskav in razvoja pred tem) pogosto v lasti družb iz vseh gospodarskih sektorjev, vključno s storitvenim sektorjem.
The Commission considered that the measure does not strengthen the position of any particular class of undertakings in relation to others competing in intra-Community trade [44] and applies without distinction to all economically active persons [45].
Komisija je menila, da ukrep ne krepi položaja nobenega od razredov podjetij glede na druga podjetja, ki konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti [44], in se uporablja brez razlikovanja za vse delovno aktivne osebe [45].
Again, the Authority does not consider that this decision is relevant to the taxation of captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein.Finally, reference has been made to the Commission Decision on the Groepsrentebox scheme, a Dutch measure aimed at reducing the difference in fiscal treatment between two instruments of intra-group financing, debt and equity.
Nadzorni organ tudi tukaj meni, da ta odločba ne zadeva obdavčevanja lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu.Navedena je bila tudi odločba Komisije o shemi Groepsrentebox, tj. nizozemskem ukrepu, ki je bil namenjen zmanjševanju razlik pri obdavčevanju med dvema instrumentoma financiranja znotraj skupine – dolgom in kapitalom.
Under the measure, the positive balance between received and paid interests on intra-group financing transactions is taxed in an ‘interest group box’ at the rate of 5 %, instead of the 25,5 % standard corporate tax rate.
V skladu z ukrepom se pozitivna bilanca med prejetimi in plačanimi obrestmi na transakcije za financiranje znotraj skupine obdavčuje v „skupinskem paketu obresti“ po 5-odstotni stopnji namesto po običajni stopnji davka za podjetja, ki znaša 25,5 %.
The Commission considered that the advantage given to a company providing a loan to a related company cannot be considered as discriminatory, since a loan to a related company cannot be compared to a loan to an unrelated company.
Komisija je menila, da se prednost, podeljena družbi, ki zagotavlja posojilo povezani družbi, ne more šteti za diskriminatorno, ker se posojilo povezani družbi ne more primerjati s posojilom nepovezani družbi.
The Commission was of the view that the requirement of exercising control of another company is a horizontal criterion applying to all companies regardless of their size, sector or of any other distinction — a different rate of taxation for debt financing between related companies, therefore, reflects objective differences and does not affect tax neutrality.
Komisija je menila, da je zahteva po izvajanju nadzora nad drugo družbo horizontalno merilo, ki se uporablja za vse družbe, ne glede na njihovo velikost, sektor ali drugo razlikovanje – drugačna stopnja obdavčevanja za dolžniško financiranje med povezanimi družbami tako odraža objektivne razlike in ne vpliva na davčno nevtralnost.
While the Authority accepts that there are certain similarities between the above cases and the tax measures under investigation, in particular in relation to the inter-group nature of the Irish and Dutch cases, the Authority does not accept that the reasoning of the Commission applies in this case.
Medtem ko Nadzorni organ soglaša, da obstajajo nekatere podobnosti med zgornjima zadevama in davčnimi ukrepi, ki se preiskujejo v tej zadevi, še posebno glede na to, da gre v irskem in nizozemskem primeru za dejavnosti znotraj skupine, pa se ne more strinjati, da je v tej zadevi mogoče uporabiti utemeljitev Komisije.
An essential part of the Commission’s reasoning in each of these cases was that the action which leads to the beneficial tax treatment is open to any undertaking, and in this context the Authority considers it significant that minimum financial transaction amounts (for setting up a company in the Netherlands, and the minimum value of the relevant holding in Ireland) were abolished.
Bistven del utemeljitve Komisije v obeh zadevah je bil, da je ukrep, ki je privedel do ugodnejše davčne obravnave, dostopen vsem podjetjem, in v tem okviru Nadzorni organ meni, da je pomembno, da je bil ukinjen minimalni znesek finančnih transakcij (za ustanovitev družbe na Nizozemskem in minimalna vrednost zadevnega lastniškega deleža na Irskem).
For the reasons set out above, the Authority is of the view that creating a captive insurance company is not something that is open to any undertaking (and concludes that a tax exemption specific to one form of company is different to the circumstances of this case in any event).
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov Nadzorni organ meni, da ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice ni dostopna vsem podjetjem (in ugotavlja, da se davčna oprostitev, ki se nanaša posebej na eno obliko družbe, vsekakor razlikuje od okoliščin te zadeve).
Logic of the tax system
Logika davčnega sistema
A specific or selective tax measure can nevertheless be justified by the logic of the tax system [46].
Poseben ali selektiven davčni ukrep je kljub temu mogoče utemeljiti z logiko davčnega sistema [46].
Measures intended partially or wholly to exempt firms in a particular sector from the charges arising from the normal application of the general system can constitute State aid if there is no justification for the exemption on the basis of the nature and logic of the general tax system [47].
Vsak ukrep, ki je namenjen temu, da podjetja v nekem sektorju delno ali v celoti oprosti stroškov, ki izhajajo iz običajne uporabe splošnega sistema, je lahko državna pomoč, če te oprostitve ni mogoče upravičiti z naravo in logiko splošnega davčnega sistema [47].
It is possible, therefore, for the specific tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies to not be selective if justified by the nature and general scheme of the Liechtenstein tax system.
Tako je mogoče, da posebna davčna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice, niso selektivna, če jih je mogoče utemeljiti z naravo in splošno shemo lihtenštajnskega davčnega sistema.
The Authority must assess whether the different treatment of undertakings as regards advantages or burdens introduced by the tax measure in question arise from the nature or general system of the overall scheme which applies.
Nadzorni organ mora oceniti, ali različna obravnava podjetij glede na prednosti ali obremenitve, uvedene z zadevnim davčnim ukrepom, izhaja iz narave ali splošnega sistema celotne sheme, ki se uporablja.
Where such a differentiation is based on objectives other than those pursued by the overall scheme, the measure in question would in principle be considered selective.According to established case-law, it is for the EFTA State that has introduced different treatment between undertakings to prove that it is justified by the nature and general scheme of the system in question [48].
Kadar takšno razlikovanje temelji na ciljih, ki jih splošna shema ne poskuša doseči, bi se zadevni ukrep načelno štel za selektivnega.V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso mora država Efte, ki je uvedla različno obravnavo podjetij, dokazati, da je to utemeljeno z naravo in splošno shemo zadevnega sistema [48].
The Authority must thereafter consider whether the special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies meet the objectives inherent in the tax system itself, or whether it pursues other objectives.The Liechtenstein authorities have stated that this tax concession was introduced in order to establish and develop the captive insurance sector as a new field of economic activity in Liechtenstein.
Nadzorni organ mora potem oceniti, ali posebna davčna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice, izpolnjujejo cilje samega davčnega sistema ali sledijo drugim ciljem.Lihtenštajnski organi so izjavili, da je bila ta davčna olajšava uvedena, da bi se sektor lastnih zavarovalnic vzpostavil in razvil kot novo področje gospodarske dejavnosti v Lihtenštajnu.
In the view of the Authority, this is clearly an economic and political purpose not inherent to a revenue tax which, therefore, does not fall within the logic of a tax system [49].The Liechtenstein authorities have further argued, in line with certain third parties, that differential treatment of captives in comparison to other insurance companies is recognised by EEA law through secondary legislation concerning insurance companies, in particular, the Reinsurance Directive 2005/68/EC and the new Solvency II Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [50].
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je to očiten gospodarski in politični cilj, ki ni lasten davku na dobiček, zato ne spada v logiko davčnega sistema [49].Lihtenštajnski organi so poleg tega skupaj z nekaterimi tretjimi stranmi trdili, da se drugačna obravnava lastnih zavarovalnic glede na druge zavarovalnice v zakonodaji EGP priznava s sekundarno zakonodajo o zavarovalnicah, še posebej z Direktivo 2005/68/ES o pozavarovanju in novo Direktivo 2009/138/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [50] Solventnost II.
It is said that the EU Reinsurance Directive and the Solvency II Directive distinguish captive insurance companies from traditional or commercial insurance businesses, and contend that this is consistent with the differential tax treatment under Liechtenstein law.The Authority acknowledges that there may be valid reasons to differentiate between captive and other insurance companies in so far as internal market regulatory requirements ensuring retention, for example, of a certain level of capital, are concerned.
Navedli so, da se v direktivi EU o pozavarovanju in direktivi Solventnost II lastne zavarovalnice razlikujejo od tradicionalnih ali komercialnih zavarovalnic, ter trdili, da je to skladno z drugačno davčno obravnavo v skladu z lihtenštajnsko zakonodajo.Nadzorni organ priznava, da morda obstajajo veljavni razlogi za razlikovanje med lastnimi in drugimi zavarovalnicami v zvezi z zakonskimi zahtevami notranjega trga, s katerimi se na primer zagotavlja ohranitev določene stopnje kapitala.
However, it fails to see how such requirements could justify a difference in taxation of the capital gains and income generated by the economic activity of providing an insurance service.
Kljub temu pa ne razume, kako bi bilo mogoče s takimi zahtevami utemeljiti različno obdavčevanje kapitalskega dobička in dobička, ustvarjenega z gospodarsko dejavnostjo zagotavljanja zavarovalnih storitev.
In the Authority’s view, these considerations, no matter how valid they are, do not relate to the logic of the income and capital tax system and cannot therefore be considered as a justification for the total or partial exemption from taxation applicable only to captive insurance companies.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa se te utemeljitve ne glede na to, kako tehtne so, ne nanašajo na logiko sistema za obdavčevanje dobička in kapitala, zato jih ni mogoče šteti za utemeljitev za popolno ali delno oprostitev obdavčevanja, ki se uporablja samo za lastne zavarovalnice.
The logic of income and capital tax systems is to gain revenue from capital and income generated by an economic activity.
Logika sistema za obdavčevanje dobička in kapitala je ustvarjanje prihodka iz kapitala in dobička, ustvarjenega z gospodarsko dejavnostjo.
Whether this activity is subject to more or less strict regulatory requirements is irrelevant in this context.
Dejstvo, ali za to dejavnost veljajo bolj ali manj stroge regulativne zahteve, v tem okviru ni pomembno.
For these reasons, the Authority considers that the tax exemptions applicable to captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein are not justified by the nature and general scheme of the Liechtenstein tax system.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da davčnih oprostitev, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice v Lihtenštajnu, ne utemeljujeta narava in splošna shema lihtenštajnskega davčnega sistema.
In order to fall under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Da bi ukrep spadal na področje uporabe člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti, da bi jo lahko izkrivljal, in vplivati na trgovino med državami pogodbenicami.
For a measure to distort competition it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition, and that the measure concerned affects intra-Community trade by financially strengthening the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade [51].
Da bi ukrep izkrivljal konkurenco, zadostuje, da prejemnik pomoči konkurira drugim podjetjem na trgih, odprtih za konkurenco, in da zadevni ukrep vpliva na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, tako da finančno krepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini v Skupnosti [51].
As stated above, the Authority considers that captive insurance companies carry out an economic activity consisting in offering insurance services as an alternative to commercial insurance.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, Nadzorni organ meni, da lastne zavarovalnice opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ki jo sestavlja ponujanje storitev zavarovanja, ki so alternativa komercialnemu zavarovanju.
The insurance market is open to competition and therefore any advantage offered to captive insurance companies has a distortive effect.
Zavarovalniški trg je odprt za konkurenco in tako ima vsaka prednost, ponujena lastnim zavarovalnicam, izkrivljajoč učinek.
It constitutes an incentive for certain groups of undertakings to establish their own insurance companies to insure risks which had otherwise been insured in the open market.Since the insurance services which the eligible companies carry out are activities which are the subject of trade between the Contracting Parties, intra-EEA trade is equally deemed to be affected [52].
Pomeni spodbudo za nekatere skupine podjetij, da ustanovijo svoje lastne zavarovalnice za zavarovanje tveganj, ki bi jih sicer zavarovala na odprtem trgu.Ker so zavarovalne storitve, ki jih izvajajo upravičene družbe, predmet trgovine med pogodbenicami, se šteje, da je enako prizadeta tudi trgovina znotraj EGP [52].
The Authority concludes that the special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da posebna davčna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice v Lihtenštajnu, predstavljajo državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
V skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 „mora biti Nadzorni organ Efte o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči obveščen dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe. […] Zadevna država ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev.“
The special rules regarding the capital, income and coupon taxes applicable to captive insurance undertakings were introduced into the Tax Act in December 1997, i.e. after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.
Posebna pravila v zvezi z davkom na kapital, dobiček in obresti od kuponskih obveznic, ki veljajo za lastne zavarovalnice, so bila v davčni zakon vključena decembra 1997, tj. po začetku veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP.
The Liechtenstein authorities did not notify this amendment of the Tax Act to the Authority.
Lihtenštajnski organi te spremembe davčnega zakona niso priglasili Nadzornemu organu.
The Liechtenstein authorities and certain third parties have argued that the Liechtenstein tax regime in favour of captive insurance companies constitutes existing aid.
Lihtenštajnski organi in nekatere tretje strani so trdili, da lihtenštajnska davčna ureditev v korist lastnih zavarovalnic pomeni obstoječo pomoč.
They claim that the tax measures only became aid as a result of the evolution of EEA law since at the time they entered into force, 1 January 1998 [53], there were no rules or precedents indicating any relationship between the grant of State aid and the tax measures [54].
Menijo, da so davčni ukrepi postali pomoč izključno zaradi razvoja zakonodaje EGP, saj ob začetku veljavnosti 1. januarja 1998 [53] ni bilo nobenih pravil ali precedenčnih primerov, ki bi kazali na kakršno koli povezavo med dodelitvijo državne pomoči in davčnimi ukrepi [54].
Article l(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement states that aid is deemed to be an existing aid if it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, but subsequently became aid due to the evolution of the EEA; and if the measure has not been subsequently amended by the EFTA State.
Člen 1(b)(v) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču določa, da se pomoč šteje za obstoječo pomoč, če je mogoče ugotoviti, da ob začetku izvajanja ni bila pomoč, pozneje pa je to postala zaradi razvoja EGP, in če država Efte ukrepa pozneje ni spremenila.
The Authority is of the view, however, that the European Court of Justice had made it clear as far back as the 1970s that tax exemptions of the nature of those under assessment could be State aid.
Vendar pa Nadzorni organ meni, da je Sodišče že leta 1970 jasno razglasilo, da so davčne oprostitve, ki so podobne ocenjevanim v tej zadevi, lahko državna pomoč.
The Court held in 1974 [55] that any measures intended to exempt firms in a particular sector from the charges arising from the normal application of a tax system (without there being any justification for this exemption on the basis of the nature or general scheme of this system) constituted State aid.
Sodišče je leta 1974 [55] razsodilo, da vsak ukrep, ki je namenjen temu, da podjetja v nekem sektorju oprosti stroškov, ki izhajajo iz običajne uporabe davčnega sistema (če ta oprostitev ni upravičena na podlagi narave ali splošne sheme tega sistema), pomeni državno pomoč.