natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Glede na to poročevalka predlaga, da se ne vložijo predlogi sprememb k skupnemu stališču.
To that end, your rapporteur proposes that no amendments be tabled to the common position.
Skupno stališče Sveta z namenom sprejetja Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o tehničnih predpisih za plovila, namenjena za plovbo po celinskih plovnih poteh, in razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 82/714/EGS
Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels and repealing Council Directive 82/714/EEC
o predlogu Direktive Sveta o spremembi Direktive 77/388/EGS v zvezi z nekaterimi ukrepi za poenostavitev postopka za računanje davka na dodano vrednost in za pomoč pri preprečevanju utaje in izogibanja davkom, ter o preklicu nekaterih odločb o dovoljenju odstopanj
on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards certain measures to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax and to assist in countering tax evasion and avoidance, and repealing certain Decisions granting derogations
MNENJE Odbora za proračunski nadzor .............................................................13
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL..........................................2
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2005)0089 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2005)0089 )
– ob upoštevanju člena 93 Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6‑0100/2005 ),
– having regard to Article 93 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0100/2005 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve in mnenja Odbora za proračunski nadzor ( A6–0209/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control ( A6‑0209/2006 ),
(1a) Da bi Skupnosti zaščitili pred finančno škodo na področju DDV, zlasti škodo, ki nastane zaradi goljufivih ali drugih nezakonitih čezmejnih dejavnosti, k čemur so se države članice zavezale v členu 280 Pogodbe, morajo države članice tesno sodelovati z Evropskim uradom za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF).
(1a) In order to protect the Community against damage to its financial interests in relation to value added tax, and in particular against losses resulting from fraudulent or other illegal cross ‑border activities, as the Member States have committed themselves to do pursuant to Article 280 of the Treaty, Member States should cooperate closely with the European Anti ‑Fraud Office (OLAF).
(9a) Davčna pristojnost držav članic mora ob predloženi pobudi ostati nedotakljiva.
(9a) This Directive should not encroach on the power of the Member States to levy t axes.
UVODNA IZJAVA 9 B (novo)
RECITAL 9 B (new)
(9b) Racionalizacija odstopanj mora biti ob učinkovitem preprečevanju davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom le manjši del obširnega programa reforme ureditve o DDV v EU in zato je treba uvesti dodatne reforme ureditve DDV med drugim s ciljem preprečevanja davčnih goljufij, za posodobitev in poenostavitev, na primer finančnih storitev, e-storitev, dvojnega obdavčevanja in javnih storitev.
(9b) In order to fight tax evasion and avoidance effectively, the streamlining of derogations should be only a limited component of a comprehensive programme to reform the EU's value added tax) regime, and, thus, further reforms of the regime should be undertaken, aimed, inter alia, at combating tax fraud, with a view to modernising and simplifying, for example, financial services, e-services, double taxation situations, and public services.
UVODNA IZJAVA 9 D (novo)
RECITAL 9 D (new)
(9d) Merila, ki jih je treba upoštevati v primeru kakršnih koli sprememb sistema pobiranja DDV, so učinkovitost pobiranja davkov, enakost davčne obravnave in izvedljivost v poslovanju podjetij.
(9d) The criteria for consideration in any change in the system for levying value added tax should be the effectiveness of tax collection, equality in tax treatment and practicability for businesses.
Ob upoštevanju raznolikosti in kompleksnosti sedanje zakonodaje o DDV je treba vse politične cilje pri kakršni koli spremembi sistema doseči na čim bolj preprost način.
In view of the already existing diversity and complexity of current VAT legislation, any change in the system must mean that all political objectives are achieved as simply as possible.
Rezultat morajo biti pravne določbe, ki jih je laže uporabiti in so bolj učinkovite.
It must result in legal provisions which are easier to apply and are more effective.
Člen 4, odstavek 4 (Direktiva 77/388/EGS)
Article 4, paragraph 4 (Directive 77/388/EEC)
(1) Členu 4(4) se doda naslednji pododstavek:
(1) In Article 4(4), the following subparagraph is added:
„Ko država članica uporabi možnost, zagotovljeno v drugem pododstavku, mora zagotoviti, da uporaba te možnosti ne ustvari neupravičene koristi ali neupravičene škode za davčne zavezance.“
“Where a Member State exercises the option provided for in the second subparagraph, it shall ensure that the application of this option creates neither unjustifiable benefit nor unjustified disadvantage for taxable persons.”
Pravni pogoji za to določbo so nejasni in zato povzročajo nevarnost pravne negotovosti in/ali zlorabe oblike.
The legal premises on which the above provision is based are unclear and consequently pose the danger of legal uncertainty and/or abuse of the power to dispose.
Člen 5, odstavek 8, drugi stavek (Direktiva 77/388/EGS)
Article 5, paragraph 8, second sentence (Directive 77/388/EEC)
(2) Drugi stavek v členu 5(8) se zamenja z naslednjim:
(2) In Article 5(8) the second sentence is replaced by the following:
„Ko je to ustrezno in če prejemnik ni dolžan plačevati polnega davka, lahko države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za preprečevanje izkrivljanja konkurence.
“Where appropriate, Member States may, in cases where the recipient is not wholly liable to tax, take the necessary measures to prevent distortion of competition.
Države članice zagotovijo, da se ne dodeli nobena neupravičena korist ali škoda.“
They shall ensure that there is no unjustifiable benefit or unjustified disadvantage conferred.”
Glej predlog spremembe 2.
See Amendment 2.
Člen 21, odstavek 2, točka (c a) (novo) (Direktiva 77/388/EGS)
Article 21, paragraph 2, point (c a) (new) (Directive 77/388/EEC)
(ca) Razmejitev teh storitev, za katere prejemnik, ki je davčni zavezanec, dolguje davek, od drugih storitev, za katere dobavitelji storitev kot doslej dolgujejo davke, mora biti za podjetja jasna in nesporno razpoznavna ter obvladljiva.
(ca) The distinction between those services in respect of which the taxable recipient is liable to pay tax and other services in respect of which, as has been the case to date, the enterprise providing the service is liable to pay tax, must be clearly and indisputably recognisable to, and ascertainable by, enterprises.
V interesu podjetij je poskrbeti, da je opredelitev sektorjev, za katere velja obrnjena davčna obveznost, natančna in nesporna, in da je razmejitev storitev, ki kot do zdaj potrebujejo izračun dobaviteljev, jasna.
To help businesses, it is very important that sectors in which the tax charge is to be reversed should be defined in exact terms admitting of no dispute and clearly distinguished from services which, as has been the case to date, have to be charged to the enterprises providing them.
Negotovosti in spori o načinu izstavljanja računa povzročajo podjetjem dodatno birokratsko in finančno breme.
Uncertainties and disputes about the nature of charging entail additional red tape and financial outlay for businesses.
ČLEN 1, TOČKA 7 A (novo) Člen 30 a (novo) (Direktiva 77/388/EGS)
ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 A (new) Article 30 a (new) (Directive 77/388/EEC)
(7a) Vstavi se naslednji člen:
(7a) The following Article shall be inserted:
Da bi preprečili čezmejne davčne goljufije, ki škoduje finančnim interesom Skupnosti, še zlasti davčne goljufije v obliki davčnega vrtiljaka, države članice pozivajo svoje pristojne organe, da v primeru suma goljufije na tem področju tesno sodelujejo z Evropskim uradom za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF).
In order to counter cross ‑border value added tax fraud, affecting the Community's financial interests, and in particular so ‑called carousel fraud, Member States shall call upon their competent authorities to cooperate closely with the European Anti ‑Fraud Office (OLAF) where fraud is suspected.
Komisija v skladu s členom 280(5) Pogodbe Evropskemu parlamentu v okviru letnega poročila poroča o napredku na tem področju."
The Commission shall report to the European Parliament on progress in this area within the framework of its annual report in accordance with Article 280(5) of the Treaty."
Člen 34 a (novo) (Direktiva 77/388/EGS)
Article 34 a (new) (Directive 77/388/EEC)
(7b) Vstavi se naslednji člen:
(7b) The following Article shall be inserted:
Člen 34a
"Article 34a
Za opredelitev najboljše dolgoročne ureditve za pobiranje DDV v Evropski uniji Komisija pripravi obširen primerjalen povzetek, v okviru katerega bo ocenila nacionalna stališča o tem področju in nazorno navedla različne posledice, povezane s prehodom na mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti, ter prednosti in slabosti za države članice in podjetja, dejavna v Evropski uniji."
To determine the best long-term value added tax collection arrangements for the European Union, the Commission shall draw up a comprehensive comparative synopsis, assessing national thinking on the subject and specifying the many and varied consequences of changing the system to the reverse-charge model and the advantages and disadvantages for the Member States and businesses operating in the Union."
Prva direktiva o DDV sega v leto 1967
The first directive on VAT dates back to 1967
Direktiva Sveta 67/227/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 [UL 71, 14.4.1967]. in je prva politična in zakonita zaveza EU za uvedbo skupnega sistema DDV v podporo cilju oblikovanja trdnega in konkurenčnega skupnega trga z „združljivimi“ sistemi DDV in do zgodnjih 70. let so vse države članice že uvedle skupen sistem DDV.
Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11April 1967 [ OJ 71, 14.4.1967]. and is perceived as the EU’s first political and legal commitment to founding a common VAT system, underpinning the objective of establishing a sound and competitive common market with ‘compatible’ VAT systems; by the early 1970s all MS had already introduced common VAT arrangements.
Sledila je Šesta direktiva o DDV
The next important step was made with the Sixth VAT Directive
Direktiva Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 [UL L 145, 13.6.1977]. , ki v splošnem uvaja enako davčno osnovo za transakcije.
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 [OJ L 145, 13.6.1977]. , introducing a broadly identical tax base for transactions.
Pozneje je Komisija v skladu z „Belo knjigo o enotnem trgu“ iz leta 1985 sestavila paket predlogov o tej temi.
Later on, in line with the 1985 ‘ S ingle Market White Paper’ , the Commission tabled a package of proposals on the issue.
Vlade predlogov vseeno niso sprejele in postalo je jasno, da do določenega roka, leta 1993, ne bo mogoče sprejeti skupnega stališča.
These, however, proved unacceptable to the governments and it became clear that it would not be possible to comply with the set timetable of reaching a common point by 1993.
Svet je zato odločil, da uvede prehodni sistem, ki odpravlja davčni nadzor na mejah.
The Council therefore decided to introduce a transitional system abolishing tax checks at frontiers.
Od takrat se sistem DDV, ki naj bi bil prehoden (in bi moral konec leta 1996 nehati veljati), uporablja v trgovini v celotni EU.
Ever since, the supposedly transitional VAT system (which was to have expired at the end of 1996) has been broadly applicable to trade in the EU.
Vzroki spremembe in cilji predloga
Stimuli for change and objectives of the proposal
Leta 1996 je Komisija ponovno sestavila predlog o uvedbi skupnega sistema.
In 1996 the Commission once again came back with a new proposal aiming at introduction of a common system.
Kljub temu, da je bil pristop iz leta 1987 (takojšen prehod), ki je vzbudil veliko pozornosti, opuščen in je predlog iz leta 1996 predvideval postopno preusmeritev, se je kmalu izkazalo, da ga bo težko izvajati.
Despite the fact that the 1987 ‘big bang’ approach (immediate switch-over) was abandoned and the 1996 proposal envisaged a gradual changeover, the system soon proved to be as difficult to implement.
Zaradi skladnosti novih pobud z obstoječo zakonodajo se je Komisija usmerila k izboljšanju zdajšnjih „prehodnih“ ureditev.
For the sake of consistency between the new initiatives and the legislation already existing, the Commission decided to shift towards improving the present ‘transitional’ arrangements.
Nova strategija je bila objavljena leta 2000
The new strategy was announced in 2000
COM(2000) 348 z dne 7. junija 2000. in vključena priporočila so vsebovala eno večjo pripombo, in sicer da zdajšnji sistem DDV podjetjem povzroča čezmerne stroške in omejitve.
COM(2000)348 of 7 June 2000. and the recommendations integrated therein made but one major observation, namely that the current VAT system imposes excessive costs and constraints on business.
Oktobra 2003 je Komisija izdala revidirano strategijo.
In October 2003 the Commission issued a revised strategy.
Predlog se lahko obravnava kot „ukrep racionalizacije“ s skupnim ciljem spreminjanja Šeste direktive o DDV, ki bo državam članicam zagotovil neobvezne določbe za hitro sprejetje zakonsko veljavnih ukrepov za boj proti nelojalni konkurenci, preprečevanje izpada davčnih prihodkov in poenostavitev postopka za računanje DDV.
The proposal can be treated as a ‘rationalisation exercise’ with the overall objective of amending the Sixth VAT Directive to provide MS with the optional provision of quick adoption of legally sound measures to combat unfair competition, counter loss of revenues and simplify the procedure for charging VAT.
– Odstopanja: odstopanja v členu 27, ki državam članicam dovoljujejo, da uvedejo posebne ukrepe za poenostavitev pobiranja davkov in usmerjanje k težavam davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom.
– Derogations : operate under Article 27 and authorise any MS to introduce special measures in order to simplify tax collection and target its tax evasion or tax avoidance problems.
Do zdaj se uporablja okoli 140 odstopanj, število pa se bo še povečalo.
At present there are about 140 derogations in force and their number is about to grow.
Ob zavedanju pomanjkanja preglednosti in pravne gotovosti si je Komisija začela prizadevati, da ta pojav racionalizira z uvedbo nekaterih posameznih odstopanj, ki so zelo učinkovita, veljajo za vse države članice in so neobvezna, ne da bi pridobila dovoljenja, kot je zdajšnja praksa.
Being aware of the lack of transparency and legal certainty, the Commission decided to undertake some efforts to rationalise this phenomenon by making certain particularly effective individual derogations applicable to all MS, without need for them to seek individual authorisations, as is the case at present, on an optional basis.
Komisija je prepričana, da bi širša uporaba teh odstopanj zaščitila lojalna podjetja pred konkurenčnimi prednostmi tistih,
The Commission believes that a wider use of these would protect compliant businesses from the competitive advantages gained by tax avoiders and evaders;
– izogibanje davku in davčna utaja: v členu 22(8), ki državam članicam omogoča, da predpišejo druge obveznosti, za katere menijo, da so potrebne pri pobiranju DDV
– tax avoidance and evasion : operates under Article 22(8) and gives MS a possibility to impose other obligations that they deem necessary for VAT collection and the prevention of tax evasion;
– poenostavitev davčne uporabe: v naslovu XIV, ki omogoča neobvezno uporabo postopka poenostavitve pobiranja DDV ali oprostitve davka nekaterih davčnih zavezancev (posebne sheme za mala podjetja, kmete itd.)
– simplification of tax application : operates under Title XIV and allows optional application of simplification procedures for VAT collection or tax release for some taxable persons (special schemes for small undertakings, farmers, etc.).
Neobveznost te določbe je povzročila, da so se postopki poenostavitve med državami članicami znatno razlikovali in tako povzročili zmedo.
The optionality of that provision has led to simplification regimes differing considerably from one MS to another and thus created confusion.
V skladu s razvrstitvijo Komisije obstajajo tri skupine ukrepov, določenih v predlogu, in sicer naslednji:
According to the Commission’s classification, there are three categories of measures laid down in the proposal, which can be identified as follows:
Previdnostni ukrepi : ne izhajajo neposredno iz odstopanj
Precautionary measures : not arising directly from the derogations
– okrepitev preventivnih določb na področjih „razvrstitve“ (zakonska neodvisnost, toda tesna finančna, gospodarska in organizacijska povezava med davčnimi zavezanci) in premestitve delujočih podjetij (premestitev v celoti ali le del premoženja);
– strengthening preventive provisions in the areas of ‘grouping’ (legal independence but close financial, economic and organisational links between taxable persons) and transfer of going concerns (transfer of all or part of the assets);
– pojasnitev prilagoditev odbitkov, povezanih z investicijskim blagom (člen 20(2) in (3)), lahko enako velja za investicijske storitve, tj. predstavljajo dolgoročno naložbo;
– clarification of adjustments of deductions related to capital items (Article 20(2) and (3)) that can equally apply to services of a capital nature, i.e. constituting a long-term investment;
Manjše določbe:
Minor provisions:
– neobvezna razširitev posebnih ukrepov v zvezi s trgovanjem z zlatom za preprečevanje izogibanju plačila DDV na investicijsko zlato (oproščeno DDV), ki se uporablja kot surovina za proizvodnjo izdelkov široke uporabe (DDV se računa na dobavo);
– optional extension of the special measures related to gold trading to counter any VAT avoidance regarding investment gold (VAT exempt) used as raw material for production of consumer goods (VAT charged on supply);
Glavne določbe:
Key provisions:
– neobvezne določbe v določenih okoliščinah in ne pri običajnih vsakodnevnih transakcijah omogočajo vrednotenje/ponovno vrednotenje dobav po vrednosti na odprtem trgu, ki je eno najbolj občutljivih področij izogibanja davkom;
– optional provisions enabling, under certain circumstances and not to be applied to normal everyday transactions, valuation/revaluation of supplies at their open market value, this being one of the most vulnerable areas for avoidance;
– razširitev uporabe neobveznega mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti za določene dobave, izvedene davčnim zavezancem: storitve v zvezi z zgradbami in povezane dobave osebja; odpadki, ostanki in materiali, ki jih je mogoče reciklirati; zemljišča in zgradbe, za katere je bila uporabljena možnost za obdavčitev; blago, vzeto kot jamstvo; blago, prodano med uveljavljanjem pravic prevzemnika po odstopu pridržane lastninske pravice; določena zemljišča in zgradbe po sodni likvidaciji.
– extension of optional use of a reverse charge mechanism for specified supplies to taxable persons such as: services relating to buildings and associated supplies of staff; waste, scrap and recyclable materials; land and buildings in respect of which the option to tax has been exercised; goods taken as security; goods sold in the course of the exercise of an assignee’s rights following the cession of the reservation of ownership; opted land and buildings in the course of a judicial liquidation.
Ta področja državam članicam povzročajo težave, zakonite določbe pa so nezadostne.
These are the identified areas that have proved to be troublesome for the MS, and the regular provisions are insufficient.
Mnenje poročevalca
The rapporteur’s opinion
Poročevalec se zavzema za in podpira cilj te pobude Komisije.
The rapporteur advocates and supports the aim of the Commission proposal.
Zdaj države članice v skladu z individualnimi ureditvami uporabljajo okoli 140 nacionalnih odstopanj od veljavne uredbe o DDV, ki pogosto povzročajo enake goljufije pri DDV.
At present the Member States, acting according to their respective individual arrangements, apply more than 140 national derogations from the VAT directive in force, and these often relate to circumstances constituting similar kinds of VAT fraud.
Zaradi širitve EU narašča težnja po novih zahtevkih za nacionalna odstopanja.
Following enlargement of the EU, the trend as regards requests for national derogations is once again moving upwards.
Združitev odstopanj za preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom, ki že veljajo v nekaterih državah EU in so učinkovita, se pozdravlja, ker jih lahko vse države EU uporabljajo pri preprečevanju davčnih goljufij, če tako želijo.
It is therefore welcome that the Commission has summarised the derogations already in force in some Member States that have proved effective in combating tax evasion and avoidance because this will enable all the Member States – if they so wish – to use those arrangements to stamp out tax fraud.
Zgostitev in poenostavitev veljavnih določb omogočata hitro uporabo sredstev, ne da bi vsaka država članica morala sama vlagati zahtevke za odstopanja, ki so morebiti čisto podvajanje aktivnih zahtevkov drugih držav.
If the existing provisions are streamlined and simplified, the means of action available can be deployed rapidly, and Member States will not have to seek such derogations individually and on their own behalf and hence – in some cases – will be dispensed from the need to merely duplicate earlier applications from other quarters.
Zlasti za srednje- in vzhodnoevropske države EU bo tako preprečevanje goljufij pri DDV postalo znatno preglednejše in instrumenti hitreje izvedljivi.
The measures to combat VAT fraud will thus become much clearer to central and eastern European Member States in particular, as well as being quicker to implement.
Tako lahko preprečevanje davčnih utaj v EU postane učinkovitejše in hitrejše, ne da bi bilo treba pri tem temeljito spremeniti sistem računanja DDV v Evropi.
In this way, tax evasion can be tackled more effectively and swiftly on an EU-wide basis using the means already available, without need to transform the European VAT collection system.
Podjetjem in državam EU zagotavlja več pravne varnosti.
Businesses operating in all parts of the EU and the Member States will gain greater legal certainty.
Razen tega je v primerih, ko ima davčni dolžnik finančne težave, predvidena zgostitev nepreglednih odstopanj z ukrepi.
In addition, measures to tidy up the impenetrable derogations are provided for in cases where a person liable to pay tax is in financial difficulty.
V nekaterih državah članicah se pri iskanju učinkovitih metod proti goljufijam na področju prometnega davka že dolgo razpravlja o temeljiti spremembi sistema računanja DDV.
In several Member States discussions have been continuing for quite some time on a fundamental change in the VAT collection system, the aim being to devise effective methods for eradicating turnover tax fraud.
Pri tem se zdi, da ima model obrnjene davčne obveznosti za podjetja, ki pridobijo blago ali storitev, nekatere prednosti.
The reverse charge model, whereby tax is charged to businesses acquiring goods or a service, does seem to offer some advantages.
Njegovi zagovorniki so prepričani, da bi ta sistem lahko učinkovito preprečil organizirane nacionalne in mednarodne davčne goljufije.
Its advocates are convinced that the system would be a more effective way to prevent national and international tax fraud.
Prav srednje velika podjetja so pogosto žrtve goljufij na področju prometnega davka, tako da mora biti zmanjšanje te obremenitve pomemben cilj podjetniške politike EU.
Small and medium-sized businesses in particular frequently fall victim to tax fraud organised nationally or internationally: reducing this scourge therefore has to be a key goal of EU enterprise policy.