natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Next, the Authority must assess whether, under a particular statutory scheme (in this case the corporate tax), a state measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question [33].Accordingly, the Authority must assess and determine whether any advantage granted by the tax measure at issue may be selective by demonstrating that the measure derogates from that common regime inasmuch as the measure differentiates between economic operators who, in light of the objective assigned to the tax system of the State concerned, are in a comparable factual and legal situation [34].Following the case law mentioned above, the Authority must therefore assess whether under the corporate tax, the 15 % deduction of the cooperatives’ income derived from trade with their members favours certain cooperatives within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the corporate tax.
Nadzorni organ mora oceniti, ali je državni ukrep po določenem zakonskem sistemu (v tem primeru davek od dobička pravnih oseb) takšen, da posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga daje prednost v smislu člena 61(1) EGP v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so v podobnem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, ki je primerljiv z vidika cilja, kateremu je namenjen zadevni ukrep [33].V skladu s tem mora Nadzorni organ oceniti in ugotoviti, ali je prednost, dodeljena z zadevnim davčnim ukrepom, selektivna, tako, da dokaže, da ukrep odstopa od običajnega režima, ker razlikuje med gospodarskimi subjekti, ki so z vidika cilja, določenega za davčni sistem zadevne države v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju [34].Po zgoraj navedeni sodni praksi mora Nadzorni organ zato oceniti, ali po davku od dobička pravnih oseb 15-odstotna olajšava od prihodka zadrug, ki izhaja iz trgovine z njihovimi člani, določenim zadrugam daje prednost v smislu člena 61(1) EGP v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju z vidika cilja davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
As mentioned above, the objective pursued by the corporate tax is to tax profits made by companies.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je cilj davka od dobička pravnih oseb obdavčitev dobička, ki ga ustvarijo podjetja.
In this context, the Authority is aware of the specifics of cooperatives.
V tem okviru se Nadzorni organ zaveda posebnosti zadrug.
In particular, the Authority notes that according to the Commission Communication on cooperatives, ‘[c]ooperatives operate in the interest of their members, who are at the same time users, and they are not managed in the interests of outside investors. Profits are received by members in proportion to their businesses with the cooperative, and resources and assets are commonly held, non-distributable and dedicated to the common interests of members. Because personal links among members are in principle strong and important, new membership is subject to approval while voting rights are not necessarily proportional to shareholdings (one man one vote). Resignation entitles the member to repayment of his part and implies reduction of the capital.’ [35]
Nadzorni organ zlasti ugotavlja, da v skladu s Sporočilom Komisije o zadrugah „zadruge delujejo v interesu svojih članov, ki so hkrati tudi uporabniki in niso upravljani v interesu zunanjih vlagateljev. Dobičke prejmejo člani v sorazmerju z njihovimi posli z zadrugo, viri in sredstva pa se običajno obdržijo, se ne razdelijo in se namenijo skupnim interesom članov. Ker so osebne povezave med člani načeloma močne in pomembne, se vsako novo članstvo odobri, glasovalne pravice pa niso nujno sorazmerne s poslovnim deležem (en človek, en glas). Če član izstopi, je upravičen do vračila svojega deleža, kar pomeni zmanjšanje kapitala.“ [35]
Consequently, a pure mutual cooperative is defined, firstly, by a specific relationship with the members of the cooperative, meaning that the members are actively involved in the running of the business of the cooperative, and that there is a large extent of interaction between the members and the cooperative reaching beyond a merely commercial relationship.
Posledično je opredeljena popolnoma vzajemna zadruga. Prvič, s posebnim odnosom s člani zadruge, kar pomeni, da so člani aktivno udeleženi pri vodenju poslovanja zadruge, ter da je med člani in zadrugo pomembno medsebojno delovanje, ki presega zgolj poslovni odnos.
Secondly, the assets of the cooperative are commonly held by the members and the profits are distributed exclusively among the members of the cooperative based on the members’ business with the cooperative.
Drugič, premoženje zadruge je običajno v lasti članov, dobički pa se razdelijo izključno med člane zadruge, na podlagi poslovanja članov z zadrugo.
On the basis of the principles set out above, the Authority does not exclude that pure mutual cooperatives and other companies can be considered not to be in a comparable legal and factual situation where the objective of tax on corporate profits is concerned.
Na podlagi zgornjih načel Nadzorni organ ne izključuje, da je mogoče popolnoma vzajemne zadruge in druga podjetja obravnavati, kot da niso v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju z vidika cilja davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
However, in the present case, it appears that the pure mutual character of some of the cooperatives covered by the notified scheme is questionable.
Vendar pa se v tem primeru zdi, da je popolna vzajemnost nekaterih zadrug iz priglašene sheme vprašljiva.
A large part of the business of certain cooperatives covered by the scheme is not related to trade with the members, but to trade with other clients.
Velik del poslovanja določenih zadrug, zajetih v shemi, ni povezan s trgovino s člani, temveč s trgovino z drugimi strankami.
In this regard, the Authority refers to the limitation set out in Section 10-50 of the Tax Act whereby only consumer cooperatives with more than 50 % of the regular turnover related to trade with members are to benefit from the notified scheme.
V zvezi s tem se Nadzorni organ sklicuje na omejitev iz oddelka 10-50 Zakona o davku, po katerem naj bi od priglašene sheme imele koristi samo potrošniške zadruge, ki ustvarijo več kot 50 % rednega prometa s trgovino s člani.
In the opinion of the Authority, such prevalently mutual cooperatives are quite different from the pure cooperative model described in the Commission Communication on cooperatives.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa se takšne predvsem vzajemne zadruge precej razlikujejo od popolnoma zadružnega modela, opisanega v Sporočilu Komisije o zadrugah.
In addition, the scheme covers only those cooperatives specified in draft Section 10-50 of the Tax Act, namely certain consumer cooperatives, cooperatives active within the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors and cooperative building societies.
Poleg tega shema zajema samo zadruge, opredeljene v osnutku oddelka 10-50 Zakona o davku, in sicer določene potrošniške zadruge, zadruge v kmetijskem, ribiškem in gozdarskem sektorju ter stanovanjske zadruge.
Only these cooperatives are entitled to a deduction of up to 15 % in the part of their income deriving from trade with their members.
Samo te zadruge so upravičene do olajšave v višini do 15 % v zvezi s tistim delom prihodka, ki izhaja iz trgovine s člani.
Consequently, the tax advantage concerned is accorded on account of the undertaking’s legal form as cooperative and of the sectors in which that undertaking carries on its activities.
Posledično se zadevna davčna ugodnost dodeli na podlagi pravne oblike podjetja, tj. zadruge, in na podlagi sektorjev, v katerih podjetje opravlja svoje dejavnosti.
It is therefore clear that the measure is selective in relation to other comparable economic operators.
Zato je jasno, da je ukrep selektiven v primerjavi z drugimi primerljivimi gospodarskimi subjekti.
By applying a different taxation on certain cooperatives’ profits from trade with their members depending on their sector of activity, the Authority considers that Section 10-50 of the Norwegian Tax Act differentiates between economic operators who, in the light of the objective assigned to the corporate tax system which is taxation of profits, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Z uveljavitvijo drugačne obdavčitve dobička določenih zadrug iz naslova trgovine z njihovimi člani glede na njihovo področje delovanja je Nadzorni organ mnenja, da oddelek 10-50 norveškega Zakona o davku razlikuje med gospodarskimi subjekti, ki so z vidika cilja sistema davka od dobička pravnih oseb, tj. obdavčitve dobička, v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
Justification by the nature and logic of the system
Upravičenost z naravo in logiko sistema
According to well-established case law, the concept of State aid does not refer to state measures which differentiate between undertakings and which are, therefore, prima facie selective where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of which they form part [36].
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso se koncept državne pomoči ne nanaša na državne ukrepe, ki razlikujejo med podjetji in so torej na prvi pogled selektivni, če to razlikovanje izhaja iz narave ali celotne strukture sistema, katerega del so [36].
The Norwegian authorities argue that the tax deduction applicable to certain cooperatives is justified by the nature or general scheme as it implies that the Norwegian system of equity financing for corporations by receiving non-taxable deposits is made applicable also to the cooperatives.
Norveški organi navajajo, da je davčna olajšava, ki velja za določene zadruge, upravičena z naravo ali splošno shemo, saj to pomeni, da norveški sistem lastniškega financiranja za gospodarske družbe s sprejemanjem neobdavčljivih depozitov velja tudi za zadruge.
In other words, the scheme would be aimed at balancing a disadvantage for the cooperatives which is inherent in their legal form.In the opinion of the Authority, in the case at hand, the justification provided by the Norwegian authorities that the deduction in the corporate tax rate should be regarded as a compensation for the extra costs incurred by the cooperatives due to their difficult access to capital cannot be considered to fall within the logic of the corporate tax system.
Z drugimi besedami, shema bi bila namenjena izravnavi neugodnega položaja zadrug, ki je del njihove pravne oblike.Po mnenju Nadzornega organa v zadevnem primeru utemeljitve norveških organov, tj. da je treba olajšavo pri davku od dobička pravnih oseb obravnavati kot nadomestilo za dodatne stroške, ki nastanejo na strani zadrug zaradi oteženega dostopa do kapitala, ni mogoče šteti za del logike sistema davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
Corporate tax is a tax levied on a company’s income from normal trade whereas share deposits and other equity deposits are not qualified as income according to Norwegian tax law [40].
Davek od dobička pravnih oseb je davek, odmerjen od prihodka podjetja iz običajne trgovine, delniški depoziti in drugi depoziti lastniškega kapitala pa po norveški davčni zakonodaji niso opredeljeni kot prihodek [40].
Thus, even if the objective pursued by the Norwegian authorities is laudable, it does not seem to derive directly from the basic or guiding principles of the system in which the measure is embedded, namely the tax system.
Četudi je cilj norveških organov hvalevreden, pa se zdi, da ne izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel sistema, katerega del je ukrep, in sicer davčnega sistema.
The Authority recalls that according to consistent case law the objective pursued by state measures is not sufficient to exclude those measures outright from classification as aid for the purposes of Article 61(1) EEA [41].Moreover, in the present case, the Authority notes that the notified scheme is not intended to apply to all cooperatives, which in principle should suffer from the same structural disadvantage as pointed out by the Norwegian authorities.
Nadzorni organ opozarja, da po dosledni sodni praksi cilj državnih ukrepov ne zadostuje za popolno izključitev teh ukrepov iz njihove opredelitve kot pomoči za namene člena 61(1) EGP [41].Poleg tega v tem primeru Nadzorni organ opaža, da priglašena shema ni namenjena vsem zadrugam, ki naj bi načeloma trpele zaradi istega strukturno neugodnega položaja, kot ga poudarjajo norveški organi.
On the contrary, the scheme only covers cooperatives in those sectors which are expressly mentioned in the draft Section 10-50 of the Tax Act.
Nasprotno, shema zajema samo zadruge v tistih sektorjih, ki so izrecno navedeni v osnutku oddelka 10-50 Zakona o davku.
The Norwegian authorities have not submitted any arguments showing that the delimitation of the scheme to these cooperatives is in line with the nature and general scheme of the tax system.
Norveški organi niso predložili nobenih argumentov, ki bi pokazali, da je omejitev sheme na te zadruge v skladu z naravo in splošno shemo davčnega sistema.
The preparatory documents to Section 10-50 of the Tax Act simply refers to the cooperatives covered by the scheme as representing the traditional cooperative sectors [42], a consideration which is not relevant in the framework of corporate taxation.
Pripravljalni dokumenti za oddelek 10-50 Zakona o davku enostavno navajajo zadruge, zajete v shemo, kot predstavnice tradicionalnih zadružnih sektorjev [42], to pa ni pomembno v okviru obdavčitve zadrug.
Furthermore, according to the Norwegian authorities, the delimitation is based on an assumption that the cooperatives to be covered by the scheme are in more need of the aid than cooperatives in other sectors.
Poleg tega po navedbah norveških organov omejitev temelji na predpostavki, da zadruge, ki naj bi jih shema zajemala, bolj potrebujejo pomoč kot zadruge v drugih sektorjih.
However, the Norwegian authorities have neither submitted any objective information supporting their assumption nor any other objective, substantiated justification for this differentiation.In line with case law [43], the Authority considers that the need to take account of certain requirements (in this case the particularities of the cooperatives as organisations), however legitimate, cannot justify the exclusion of selective measures, even specific ones, from the scope of Article 61(1) EEA as account may in any event usefully be taken of the given objectives when the compatibility of the State aid measure is being assessed pursuant to Article 61(3) EEA.As an additional point, the Authority refers to the comments of the Norwegian Standing Committee on Co-operative Affairs and the observation that a tax exemption for cooperatives could be justified on the basis of double taxation arguments and accordingly fall within the nature and logic of the corporate tax system.
Norveški organi niso predložili nobenih objektivnih informacij, ki bi podprle to predpostavko, niti nobene druge objektivne in podprte utemeljitve tega razlikovanja.Skladno s sodno prakso [43] je Nadzorni organ mnenja, da potreba po upoštevanju določenih zahtev (v tem primeru posebnosti zadrug kot organizacij), čeprav legitimna, ne more upravičiti izključitve selektivnih ukrepov, tudi posebnih, iz področja uporabe člena 61(1) EGP, saj je mogoče v vsakem primeru koristno upoštevati zadevne cilje, ko se ocenjuje združljivost ukrepa državne pomoči po členu 61(3) EGP.Nadalje se Nadzorni organ sklicuje na pripombe Norwegian Standing Committee on Co-operative Affairs ter opazko, da je mogoče davčno oprostitev za zadruge upravičiti na podlagi argumenta dvojne obdavčitve ter posledično narave in logike sistema davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
However, based on the information available to it, the Authority cannot exclude that there would be situations where the capital would neither be taxed in the hands of the cooperative nor in the hands of the members.
Nadzorni organ na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij ne more izključiti, da bi obstajali primeri, ko kapital ne bi bil obdavčen niti na strani zadrug niti na strani članov.
Moreover, with regard to the present case and in the absence of any convincing arguments to the contrary, the Authority is of the opinion that making a favourable tax treatment applicable only for some cooperatives without providing any objective justification for this differentiation cannot be considered to be in line with the logic of the tax system [44].
Glede na zadevni primer in v odsotnosti prepričljivih argumentov o nasprotnem je Nadzorni organ mnenja, da ugodnejše davčne obravnave, ki velja samo za nekatere zadruge, brez objektivne utemeljitve razlikovanja ni mogoče obravnavati kot skladne z logiko davčnega sistema [44].
Even if the tax measure in question determines its scope on the basis of objective criteria, the fact remains that it is selective in nature [45].Against this background, the Authority considers that the tax deduction applicable to certain cooperatives derogates from the ordinary corporate tax regime, does not seem to be justified by the nature or general scheme of the system, and must therefore be considered selective [46].2.3.2. Advantage
Četudi zadevni davčni ukrep določa obseg davčne olajšave na podlagi objektivnih meril, ostaja dejstvo, da je ta po naravi selektivna [45].Na podlagi tega je Nadzorni organ mnenja, da davčna olajšava, ki velja samo za določene zadruge, odstopa od običajnega režima davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ni upravičena z naravo ali splošno shemo sistema in jo je zato treba obravnavati kot selektivno [46].2.3.2 Prednost
Second, in order to determine whether an economic advantage has been granted to the cooperatives covered by the scheme, the Authority must assess whether the measure relieves the beneficiaries of charges that they normally bear in the course of their business.
Da bi ugotovil, ali je bila zadrugam, ki so zajete v shemo, dodeljena gospodarska prednost, mora Nadzorni organ oceniti, ali ukrep upravičence razbremeni stroškov, ki bi jih običajno nosili med svojim poslovanjem.
The Authority is of the opinion that the question of whether the scheme confers an advantage to the cooperatives covered must be considered in the light of the corporate tax system which applies both to lucrative undertakings and to cooperatives, including those not covered by the scheme.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je treba vprašanje o tem, ali shema zadevnim zadrugam daje prednost, obravnavati v okviru sistema davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ki velja tako za dobičkonosna podjetja kot tudi za zadruge, vključno s tistimi, ki jih shema ne zajema.
According to the notified scheme, certain cooperatives are entitled to a deduction of up to 15 % in the part of their income deriving from trade with their members.
Po priglašeni shemi so določene zadruge upravičene do olajšave v višini do 15 % v zvezi s tistim delom prihodka, ki izhaja iz trgovine s člani.
As a result, the measure relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
Posledično jih ukrep razbremeni stroškov, ki bi jih običajno krila iz proračuna.
The Norwegian authorities and several of the third parties who have submitted comments to the opening decision argue that the proposed tax deduction does not confer an advantage on the cooperatives.
Norveški organi in več tretjih strani so predložili pripombe k odločbi o sprožitvi postopka in v njih navedli, da predlagana davčna olajšava zadrugam ne daje nobene prednosti.
Firstly, according to the Norwegian authorities, the scheme is in line with the market investor principle and should be considered as payment to the cooperatives for upholding their legal form, which is of public interest.
Prvič, po navedbah norveških organov je shema skladna z načelom tržnega vlagatelja in jo je treba obravnavati kot plačilo zadrugam za ohranjanje njihove pravne oblike, ki je v javnem interesu.
Secondly, the tax deduction is a compensation for the extra costs incurred by the cooperatives due to the restrictions imposed, in particular with regard to access to equity capital, and it does not involve any overcompensation.
Drugič, davčna olajšava je nadomestilo za dodatne stroške na strani zadrug zaradi naloženih omejitev, zlasti v zvezi s dostopom do lastniškega kapitala, in ne vključuje prekomernega nadomestila.
First, concerning the market investor principle, the argumentation seems to be based on the view that the aid granted under the scheme will not exceed the extra costs involved for an undertaking in operating as a cooperative (overcompensation) nor the public benefit of safeguarding the cooperatives.
V zvezi z načelom tržnega vlagatelja se zdi, da argument temelji na stališču, da pomoč, dodeljena po shemi, ne bo presegla dodatnega stroška, povezanega z delovanjem podjetja v vlogi zadruge (prekomerno nadomestilo), niti javne koristi zaščite zadrug.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the market investor principle applies where the State purchases intangible benefits for the public interest at market price, at least where the intangible benefit for the State is completely external to the interests of the undertaking concerned [47].The Authority considers that there are several reasons why the market investor principle is not applicable in the present case.
Norveški organi navajajo, da načelo tržnega vlagatelja velja, če država kupi nematerialno korist v javnem interesu po tržni ceni, vsaj če je nematerialna korist za državo popolnoma nepovezana z interesi zadevnega podjetja [47].Nadzorni organ meni, da obstaja več razlogov za to, da v tem primeru načelo tržnega vlagatelja ne velja.
Initially, the Authority does not agree with the position of the Norwegian authorities that operating as a cooperative does not involve any advantages for an undertaking.
Nadzorni organ se ne strinja z mnenjem norveških organov, da delovanje v vlogi zadruge ne prinaša prednosti za podjetje.
In this regard the Authority refers to the Commission Communication on cooperatives, where the European Commission sates, inter alia, that the cooperative model may be ‘a means for building or increasing the economic power of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)’ [48].
V zvezi s tem se Nadzorni organ sklicuje na Sporočilo Komisije o zadrugah, v katerem Evropska komisija med drugim navaja, da je lahko model zadrug „sredstvo za ustvarjanje ali povečanje gospodarske moči malih in srednje velikih podjetij (MSP).“ [48]
Further, the Authority considers that the intangible benefit that the State intends to ‘purchase’ in the present case is the upholding of the cooperative sector in Norway on the present conditions when it comes to restrictions on access to equity capital.
Nadalje Nadzorni organ meni, da je nematerialna korist, ki jo v tem primeru namerava „kupiti“ država, ohranitev zadružnega sektorja na Norveškem v sedanjih pogojih, ko prihaja do omejitev pri dostopu do lastniškega kapitala.
The Authority is of the opinion that it is impossible to apply the market investor principle to this case for the simple reason that no private market investor could ever make a similar transaction to the one that the Norwegian authorities are proposing.
Nadzorni organ meni, da v tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti načela tržnega vlagatelja iz preprostega razloga, ker noben zasebni tržni vlagatelj nikoli ne bi izvedel podobne transakcije, kot je tista, ki jo predlagajo norveški organi.
In this case the State is not acting as a market investor or undertaking.
V tem primeru država ne ravna kot tržni vlagatelj ali podjetje.
On the contrary, the State is performing its sovereign and administrative functions, the imposition of taxes being one of the key components of these functions.
Nasprotno, država izvaja svoje suverene in upravne funkcije, uvajanje davkov pa je ena izmed ključnih elementov teh funkcij.
The Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have not submitted any figures or other information in this regard, but merely stated that they assume this to be the case.
Nadzorni organ opaža, da norveški organi niso predložili nobenih številčnih ali drugih podatkov v zvezi s tem, temveč so zgolj navedli, da predvidevajo, da je temu tako.