natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under Liechtenstein legislation, a coupon tax is levied on the coupons of securities or documents equal to securities issued by a ‘national’ at a rate of 4 % on any distribution of dividends or profit shares.
V skladu z lihtenštajnsko zakonodajo se davek na obresti od kuponskih obveznic zaračuna za kuponske obveznice ali dokumente, enake obveznicam, ki jih izda „nacionalna družba“, po 4-odstotni stopnji od razdeljenih dividend ali deleža dobička.
By virtue of Article 88d(3) of the Tax Act, shares or parts of captive insurance companies are exempted from payment of the coupon tax.
Delnice ali deleži lastnih zavarovalnic so na podlagi člena 88d(3) davčnega zakona izvzeti iz plačila davka na obresti od kuponskih obveznic.
The Liechtenstein authorities have stated that these provisions were introduced in order to attract companies to Liechtenstein and establish and develop the captive insurance sector as a new field of economic activity.
Lihtenštajnski organi so izjavili, da so bile te določbe uvedene zaradi privabljanja družb v Lihtenštajn ter da bi se sektor lastnih zavarovalnic vzpostavil in razvil kot novo področje gospodarske dejavnosti.
In its decision opening the formal investigation, the Authority raised doubts regarding the compatibility of the tax classification of captive insurance companies with the State aid rules.
Nadzorni organ je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka preiskave izrazil dvom o združljivosti davčne klasifikacije lastnih zavarovalnic s pravili o državni pomoči.
Contrary to the arguments brought forward by the Liechtenstein authorities, the Authority took the initial view that the provision of insurance is a service which is an economic activity, and that any entity carrying out an economic activity qualifies as undertaking irrespective of its corporate form, subsidiary status or financing.
V nasprotju z argumenti, ki so jih predložili lihtenštajnski organi, je Nadzorni organ zavzel začetno stališče, da je ponujanje zavarovanj storitev, ki je gospodarska dejavnost, in da se vsak subjekt, ki izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, opredeljuje kot podjetje, ne glede na pravno obliko, financiranje in dejstvo, ali je odvisna družba ali ne.
Furthermore, the Authority had doubts as to whether the tax exemption in favour of captive insurance companies could be said to fall within the nature and logic of the tax system as argued by the Liechtenstein authorities.
Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ dvomil, da bi bilo za davčno oprostitev v korist lastnih zavarovalnic mogoče reči, da je v skladu z naravo in logiko davčnega sistema, kot to trdijo lihtenštajnski organi.
On this basis, the Authority could not exclude that the tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies (full exemption from payment of income and coupon tax and a partial exemption from payment of capital tax) constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ na tej podlagi ni mogel izključiti, da davčna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice (popolna oprostitev plačila davka na dobiček in obresti od kuponskih obveznic ter delna oprostitev plačila davka na kapital), ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority also had doubts that these measures could be considered compatible with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement, in particular Article 61(3)(c).
Nadzorni organ je dvomil tudi, da je te ukrepe mogoče šteti za združljive z določbami Sporazuma EGP o državni pomoči, še zlasti s členom 61(3)(c).
The following comments were received from third parties during the course of the formal investigation.
Med potekom formalne preiskave so tretje strani predložile naslednje pripombe.
Comments from Company A
Pripombe družbe A
Company A commented in two letters dated 22 May and 9 September 2009, received from their legal representatives.
Družba A je poslala pripombe v dveh dopisih z dne 22. maja in 9. septembra 2009, ki so ju poslali njeni pravni zastopniki.
Company A RE has operated a captive reinsurance company in Liechtenstein since 1997 through its subsidiary Company A RE Aktiengesellschaft.
Družba A RE je prek hčerinske družbe A RE Aktiengesellschaft od leta 1997 upravljala lastno pozavarovalnico v Lihtenštajnu.
It is Company A’s view that the Liechtenstein captive insurance company tax measures do not involve State aid.
Družba A meni, da lihtenštajnski davčni ukrepi za lastne zavarovalnice ne vključujejo državne pomoči.
In the alternative Company A argued that should the Authority conclude that aid is present it should be considered to be existing aid, failing which the company contends that it had legitimate expectations that the tax legislation was lawful and no recovery of aid should therefore be ordered.
Oziroma, če bi Nadzorni organ ugotovil prisotnost elementa pomoči, bi bilo po mnenju družbe A to pomoč treba šteti za obstoječo pomoč; če to ne bi bilo mogoče, družba vztraja, da je legitimno pričakovala, da je davčna zakonodaja zakonita, zato vračilo pomoči ne bi smelo biti naloženo.
Company A argued that the tax measures do not involve State aid for the following reasons:
Družba A je trdila, da davčni ukrepi ne vključujejo državne pomoči iz naslednjih razlogov:
its captive insurance company is not an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement as it does not operate on an open market [7] and because captive reinsurance operations are distinct from other open market operations as risks covered by the captive are either uninsurable or could be insured only with a prohibitive premium,the tax treatment of captives in Liechtenstein is a general measure as forming a captive does not require a certain economic strength and applies to all forms of company, citing similarities with decisions of the European Commission concerning an Irish Company Holding Regime [8] and a Spanish scheme reducing tax on revenue from certain intangible assets [9],in the alternative Company A argued that if the measure is selective it is nevertheless justified by the nature and logic of the Liechtenstein tax regime as captive reinsurance companies and open market reinsurance companies are in a different legal and factual position; and a differential (lower) tax treatment is merited if the activities are confined within a group of companies, and
njena lastna zavarovalnica ni podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, saj ne deluje na odprtem trgu [7], poleg tega pa se dejavnost lastnega pozavarovanja razlikuje od drugih dejavnosti na odprtem trgu, ker tveganj, ki jih pokriva lastna pozavarovalnica, ni mogoče zavarovati ali bi jih bilo mogoče zavarovati samo z nesorazmerno visoko premijo,davčna obravnava lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu je splošni ukrep, ker ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice ne zahteva določene gospodarske moči in ker se nanaša na vse oblike družb; družba A se je pri tem sklicevala na podobnosti z odločbama Evropske komisije v zvezi z irskim režimom holdinške družbe [8] in špansko shemo za zmanjšanje davkov na prihodke od nekaterih neopredmetenih sredstev [9],alternativno je družba A trdila, da ukrep, tudi če je selektiven, kljub temu upravičujeta narava in logika lihtenštajnske davčne ureditve, saj so lastne pozavarovalnice in pozavarovalnice na odprtem trgu v drugačnem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, in da je drugačno (nižje) obdavčevanje utemeljeno, če je dejavnost omejena znotraj skupine družb, ter
captive reinsurance companies neither distort competition nor affect trade within the EEA as the captive does not compete for market share and the services it provides are not tradable.
lastne pozavarovalnice ne izkrivljajo konkurence in ne vplivajo na trgovino znotraj EGP, saj se lastna zavarovalnica ne poteguje za tržni delež, storitev, ki jih opravlja, pa ni mogoče tržiti.
Company A also argued that the Liechtenstein tax measures on captive insurance companies, introduced in 1997, preceded the evolution of any assessment by the Authority or European Commission that such taxation on intra-group activities could involve State aid.
Družba A je trdila tudi, da so bili lihtenštajnski davčni ukrepi za lastne zavarovalnice uvedeni leta 1997 in torej pred oblikovanjem ocene Nadzornega organa ali Evropske komisije, da bi takšno obdavčevanje dejavnosti znotraj skupine lahko vključevalo državno pomoč.
In the alternative, it argued that in light of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, the Authority should not order recovery if it concludes that State aid has been granted.
Alternativno je trdila, da Nadzorni organ ob upoštevanju načel legitimnih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti ne sme naložiti vračila pomoči, če ugotovi, da je bila državna pomoč dodeljena.
In its second submission, Company A expanded upon its contention that captive insurance companies are not in a legally and factually comparable position to that of insurance companies providing services to unrelated companies, and that a differential tax treatment is justified, by making reference to the Commission’s decision concerning the Dutch Groepsrentebox scheme [10].3.2.
Družba A je v drugem dopisu razširila svojo trditev, da lastne zavarovalnice pravno in dejansko niso v primerljivem položaju z zavarovalnicami, ki ponujajo storitve nepovezanim družbam, in da je drugačna davčna obravnava upravičena, pri čemer se je sklicevala na odločbo Komisije o nizozemski shemi Groepsrentebox [10].3.2 Pripombe družbe B
It stressed, however, that it is unable to insure all of its risks either because such insurance cover is not available or because it is not financially efficient.
Vendar pa je poudarila, da ne more zavarovati vseh tveganj, ker takšno zavarovalno kritje ni na voljo ali ker ni finančno učinkovito.
Company B was founded in Liechtenstein in 2004 as a reaction to adverse insurance market developments after 2001 when commercial insurers and reinsurers began to demand higher retentions, limited their capacities, and sold insurance and reinsurance at higher prices and at more restrictive terms and conditions.
Družba B je bila ustanovljena v Lihtenštajnu leta 2004 kot odgovor na neugoden razvoj na zavarovalniškem trgu po letu 2001, ko so komercialne zavarovalnice in pozavarovalnice začele zahtevati višje lastne deleže, omejevati svoje zmogljivosti ter prodajati zavarovanja in pozavarovanja po višjih cenah in pod strožjimi pogoji.
Company C argued in particular that a commercial risk transfer (to a general insurer) always involves the customer retaining a certain portion of the risk.
Družba C je zlasti trdila, da pri prenosu komercialnega tveganja (na splošno zavarovalnico) stranka vedno ohrani neko stopnjo tveganja.
It stated that it is considered uneconomic and inefficient to seek risk transfer up to a certain level of risk retention.
Navedla je, da je negospodarno in neučinkovito iskati prenos tveganja do določene stopnje zadržanja tveganja.
The company contended that there is market consensus on levels of risk that companies keep and that below this level ‘one cannot speak of a liquid insurance market’.
Trdila je, da na trgu obstaja soglasje o stopnjah tveganja, ki ga obdržijo družbe, in da pod to stopnjo „ni mogoče govoriti o likvidnem zavarovalniškem trgu“.
Company C also considered certain risks to be uninsurable and are therefore forcibly retained by companies, and that in this area captive insurance companies do not substitute commercial insurers.
Družba C je menila tudi, da nekaterih tveganj ni mogoče zavarovati, zato jih morajo družbe nehote zadržati, ter da lastne zavarovalnice na tem področju ne nadomeščajo komercialnih zavarovalnic.
Company C explained that in its opinion forming captives is merely one way of formalising and organising retained risk within a company, and that it is not an option limited to large corporations, and does not confer an economic advantage in comparison to companies that do not form captives.
Družba C je razložila, da se ji zdi oblikovanje lastnih zavarovalnic samo eden od načinov, kako zadržano tveganje formalizirati in organizirati znotraj družbe, ter da to ni možnost, ki je na voljo samo velikim družbam, ter da družbam, ki oblikujejo lastne zavarovalnice, ne daje gospodarske prednosti pred tistimi, ki jih ne.
Although Company C stated that it is not an option limited to large companies, it also accepted, however, that larger companies have a lower cost of risk (due to economies of scale, capital structure and risk diversification) than smaller ones, and are more likely to own captive insurance companies.
Čeprav je družba C navedla, da ta možnost ni na voljo samo velikim družbam, pa je tudi priznala, da so stroški tveganja za večje družbe nižji (zaradi ekonomije obsega, kapitalske strukture in razpršitve tveganja) kot za manjše družbe ter da bodo večje družbe verjetneje imele v lasti lastne zavarovalnice.
Company C emphasised that Company B is only able to operate within its group of companies, and that it does not participate in the commercial direct insurance market.
Družba C je poudarila, da lahko družba B opravlja dejavnost samo znotraj svoje skupine podjetij in da ne sodeluje na trgu komercialnih neposrednih zavarovanj.
Finally, Company C contended that its captive does not compete with other market recipients, and, as Company C is unable to procure the services offered by its captive from other market recipients, there is no effect on cross-border competition.
Poleg tega je družba C trdila, da njena lastna zavarovalnica ne konkurira drugim udeležencem na trgu, in ker si družba C storitev, ki jih ponuja njena lastna zavarovalnica, ne more priskrbeti pri drugih udeležencih na trgu, ni nobenega vpliva na čezmejno konkurenco.
Comments from Company D
Pripombe družbe D
Company D described itself as the leading captive manager in Liechtenstein, providing management services to six of the 12 captive insurance companies currently located in the principality.
Družba D se je opisala kot vodilna upraviteljica lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu, ki upravljavske storitve zagotavlja 6 od 12 lastnih zavarovalnic s sedežem v kneževini.
In its letter received on 11 May 2009, Company D stated that in its opinion the tax measures to which captive insurance companies are subject do not distort competition as the companies do not have competitors and there is, therefore, no market.
V dopisu, ki je bil prejet 11. maja 2009, je navedla, da po njenem mnenju davčni ukrepi, ki se nanašajo na lastne zavarovalnice, ne izkrivljajo konkurence, saj družbe nimajo konkurence in tako tudi trg ne obstaja.
Company D acknowledged that in terms of supply-side substitution, ‘many commercial insurers can insure the risks captives insure’, but contended that in terms of demand-side substitution, buyers of insurance do not view captives and commercial insurers as alternatives, but as separate products.
Družba D je priznala, da v smislu zamenljivosti na strani ponudbe „številne komercialne zavarovalnice lahko zagotovijo zavarovanja za tveganja, ki jih zavarujejo lastne zavarovalnice“, vendar pa je izjavila, da v smislu zamenljivosti na strani povpraševanja kupci zavarovanj lastnih zavarovalnic in komercialnih zavarovalnic ne vidijo kot medsebojno zamenljivih, temveč jih razumejo kot ločena produkta.
This is because commercial insurance is considered not to be as effective a risk management tool as using a captive; as the insurable risks are different (the products being complementary rather than interchangeable); and because in some countries commercial insurers and captives face different licence and regulatory requirements (Company D was of the view that it is unreasonable to classify captives as operating in the same market as commercial insurers when they do not have the same opportunity to participate in that market).
Vzrok za to je predvsem dejstvo, da se komercialno zavarovanje ne šteje za tako učinkovito orodje za upravljanje tveganj kot lastna zavarovalnica, da so tveganja, ki jih je mogoče zavarovati, drugačna (produkti so dopolnjujoči, ne zamenljivi) in da v nekaterih državah za komercialne zavarovalnice in lastne zavarovalnice veljajo drugačne zahteve glede dovoljenj in zakonske zahteve (družba D je menila, da lastnih zavarovalnic ni razumno opredeliti kot družbe, ki delujejo na istem trgu kot komercialne zavarovalnice, saj nimajo enakih priložnosti za udeležbo na tem trgu).
Company D also argued that any decision by the Authority ordering recovery of unlawful State aid from captives in Liechtenstein would be contrary to general principles of law, as it would be retrospective and in breach of the legitimate expectation of the companies that they would not be subject to an increased tax burden.
Družba D je trdila tudi, da bi bila vsaka odločitev Nadzornega organa, s katero bi lastnim zavarovalnicam v Lihtenštajnu naložil vračilo nezakonite državne pomoči, v nasprotju s splošnimi pravnimi načeli, saj bi veljala za nazaj in bi kršila legitimno pričakovanje družb, da se njihova davčna obremenitev ne bo povečala.
Comments from Company E
Pripombe družbe E
Company E is a captive insurance company located in Liechtenstein.
Družba E je lastna zavarovalnica s sedežem v Lihtenštajnu.
In its letter received by the Authority on 12 May 2009, Company E claimed that the Authority had made incorrect assumptions in its decision to open the formal procedure.
V dopisu, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel 12. maja 2009, je trdila, da je Nadzorni organ v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka sprejel napačne domneve.
Company E argued that a captive insurance company does not offset risk through the purchase of reinsurance as stated by the European Commission (and referred to by the Authority) in its decision concerning aid for captive insurance companies in Åland (Finland) [11] explaining that a captive carries all of the risks of its parent.
Trdila je, da lastna zavarovalna družba ne nadomesti tveganj s kupovanjem pozavarovanj, kot je to navedla Evropska komisija (in na kar se je skliceval Nadzorni organ) v odločbi o shemi pomoči za lastne zavarovalnice na Ålandskih otokih (Finska) [11], pri čemer je razložilo, da lastna zavarovalnica nosi vsa tveganja svoje matične družbe.
Company E also argued that insurance through a captive is not an alternative to obtaining insurance on the ‘general market’, and indeed that captives are at a disadvantage compared to general insurers as they are unable to pool risks, and should be compared not with general insurers but with the uninsured risks that companies carry.
Družba E je trdila tudi, da zavarovanje pri lastni zavarovalnici ni alternativna možnost za sklenitev zavarovanja na „splošnem trgu“ in da so lastne zavarovalnice dejansko v slabšem položaju kot običajne zavarovalnice, saj ne morejo združevati tveganj; zato se ne smejo primerjati z običajnimi zavarovalnicami, temveč jih je treba primerjati z nezavarovanimi tveganji, ki jih nosijo družbe.
Company E stated that it does not currently provide insurance to its group that cannot be bought on the international market.
Družba E je navedla, da trenutno svoji skupini ne zagotavlja zavarovanja, ki ga ne bi bilo mogoče kupiti na mednarodnem trgu.
Company E stated that establishing a captive involves substantial costs and can only be justified on commercial grounds.
Navedla je tudi, da ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice vključuje znatne stroške in da jo je mogoče utemeljiti samo na komercialni osnovi.
One of the reasons, it informed the Authority, that the company was formed in Liechtenstein was that the principality was ‘not disadvantageous’ in tax terms in comparison to other locations, and a change to the tax regime ‘will adversely affect the viability of Liechtenstein as a captive location’.
Družba je Nadzorni organ obvestila, da je bil eden od razlogov za ustanovitev družbe v Lihtenštajnu ta, da kneževina v davčnem smislu „ni neugodna“ v primerjavi z drugimi državami, sprememba davčne ureditve „pa bo neugodno vplivala na uspešnost Lihtenštajna kot sedeža za lastne zavarovalnice“.
Comments from Company F
Pripombe družbe F
Company F firstly explained how captive insurance and reinsurance companies, and in particular Company F as part of the […] Holding, are organised.
Družba F je najprej razložila, kako so organizirane lastne zavarovalnice in pozavarovalnice, še posebej družba F kot del holdinga […].
It stressed the fact that captives constitute a pooling of risks within a company group to allow for efficient risk management and financing.
Poudarila je dejstvo, da lastne zavarovalnice pomenijo združevanje tveganj znotraj skupine podjetij, da se omogočita učinkovito upravljanje in financiranje tveganj.
It also considered that the establishment of a captive creates greater transparency of risks within the group.
Menila je tudi, da ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice omogoča večjo preglednost nad tveganji znotraj skupine.
Company F referred to the lesser requirements of market integration that exist among the EFTA States of the EEA compared to the EU.
Družba F se je sklicevala na ohlapnejše zahteve pri povezovanju trgov med državami Efte, ki so članice EGP, v primerjavi z EU.
It referred in particular to Articles 113, 114(2), and 115 TFEU regarding approximation of laws in the area of taxation, which do not have analogous provisions in the EEA Agreement.
Še posebej se je sklicevala na člen 113, člen 114(2) in člen 115 PDEU o približevanju zakonodaje na področju obdavčevanja, ki nimajo primerljivih določb v Sporazumu EGP.
Company F argued that the tax measures in favour of captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Družba F je trdila, da davčni ukrepi v korist lastnih zavarovalnih družb v Lihtenštajnu ne predstavljajo državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
This statement was based on two reasons: captives are not undertakings, and the tax measures do not selectively benefit any undertaking.
Ta izjava je temeljila na dveh razlogih: lastne zavarovalnice niso podjetja, davčni ukrepi pa ne dajejo posebnih ugodnosti nobenemu podjetju.
Referring to a decision of the Authority concerning the Norwegian Road Administration Møre and Romsdal District Office [12], Company F argued that captives are not undertakings because they only provide insurance services ‘in-house’.
Družba F je ob sklicevanju na odločbo Nadzornega organa o pritožbi v zvezi z Norveško upravo za javne ceste, okrajnim uradom Møre in Romsdal [12], trdila, da lastne zavarovalnice niso podjetja, ker zavarovalne storitve ponujajo samo znotraj skupine.
Moreover, the activity carried out by captive insurance companies does not have an economic nature as it is exclusively limited to the transfer of internal risks from the activities of the remainder of the […] Holding Group.
Dejavnost, ki jo opravljajo lastne zavarovalnice, poleg tega nima gospodarske narave, saj je omejena izključno na prenos notranjih tveganj z dejavnosti preostalih družb v holdinški skupini […].
Disagreeing with the arguments put forward by the Authority in the opening decision, Company F contended that the reason for establishing a captive was not that it is economically advantageous but because it means that the risks of the group are pooled for more efficient risk management and increased transparency.
Družba F se ni strinjala z argumenti, ki jih je Nadzorni organ navedel v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, in je trdila, da razlog za ustanovitev lastne zavarovalnice ni gospodarska prednost, temveč to, da so tveganja skupine združena za učinkovitejše upravljanje tveganj in večjo preglednost.
This specific function cannot be assumed by an ‘external’ company and in consequence there is no market for this specific type of activities.
Te posebne funkcije ne more prevzeti „zunanja“ družba, zato posledično trg za to posebno vrsto dejavnosti ne obstaja.
Company F also contended that there is no open market alternative to the service it provides.
Družba F je trdila tudi, da na odprtem trgu ni nobene druge nadomestne storitve za storitev, ki jo sama zagotavlja.