natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where the parent company did not decide to redistribute those profits to its own shareholders within five years, and in consequence is no longer able to use the fiscal advantage represented by those tax credits, can the taxation — additional to corporation tax — which results from the addback of 5% of the tax credits to its taxable income be regarded as permitted under Article 7(2) of [the directive], in view of the small amount of such a tax and the fact that it was established directly in conjunction with payment of tax credits, introduced in order to mitigate the economic double taxation of dividends, or must it be regarded as contrary to the objectives of Article 4 of [the directive]?’
Ali se lahko �teje, da je – kadar se matična družba ne odloči za razdelitev tega dobička lastnim delničarjem v roku petih let in posledično ne more uveljavljati davčnih ugodnosti, ki jih predstavljajo ti davčni odbitki – z določbami člena 7(2) [Direktive] dovoljena dodatna obdavčitev poleg davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki je posledica ponovne vključitve 5 % davčnih odbitkov v njen obdavčljivi dohodek, ker gre za majhen znesek take dajatve in ker je bila uvedena v neposredni povezavi s plačilom davčnih odbitkov, uvedenih za zmanj�anje ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend, ali pa je treba �teti, da je ta dodatna obdavčitev v nasprotju s cilji iz člena 4 Direktive 90/435?“
By its question, the national court asks essentially whether the term ‘profits distributed by the subsidiary’, within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 4(2) of the
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu Sodi�če spra�uje, ali razlaga pojma „dobič[ek], ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“ v smislu člena 4(2), zadnji stavek, Direktive nasprotuje
BANQUE FÉDÉRATIVE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL directive, precludes the legislation of a Member State from including tax credits in those profits and, if so, whether that inclusion falls under Article 7(2) of the directive.
BANQUE FÉDÉRATIVE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL ureditvi države članice, na podlagi katere so davčni odbitki vključeni v navedeni dobiček, in če ji nasprotuje, ali ta vključitev izhaja iz člena 7(2) Direktive.
The directive seeks thus to ensure the neutrality, from the tax point of view, of the distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in one Member State to its parent company established in another Member State.
Z Direktivo se s tem posku�a na davčnem področju zagotoviti nevtralnost razdeljevanja dobička odvisne družbe iz ene države članice svoji matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
In order to attain those objectives, Article 4(1) of the directive provides, in order to avoid double taxation, that, where a parent company receives, by virtue of its association with its subsidiary, distributed profits, the Member State of the parent company
Člen 4(1) Direktive za uresničitev teh ciljev določa, da se zaradi izogibanja dvojnemu obdavčevanju, kadar matična družba prejme razdeljeni dobiček iz naslova svoje povezave z odvisno družbo, država matične družbe ali vzdrži obdavčenja tega
2008 — CASE C-27/07 is either to refrain from taxing such profits, or to authorise the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax payable that fraction of the corporation tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to those profits and, if appropriate, the amount of the withholding tax levied by the Member State in which the subsidiary is resident, up to the limit of the amount of the corresponding domestic tax (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 102).
2008 – ZADEVA C-27/07 dobička ali dovoli matični družbi, da odbije od zneska izračunanega davka del korporacijskega davka, ki se nana�a na ta dobiček in ga je plačala odvisna družba, in, če je primerno, znesek pri viru odtegnjenega davka, ki je ga odmerila država članica, v kateri je odvisna družba rezidentka, do vi�ine zneska ustreznega notranjega davka (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 102).
Likewise, Article 5(1) of the directive provides, in order to avoid double taxation, for exemption in the State of the subsidiary from withholding tax upon distribution of profits to its parent company, at least where the latter holds a minimum of 25% of the capital of the subsidiary (Denkavit and Others paragraph 22; Epson Europe, paragraph 20; Athinaiki Zithopiia, paragraph 25; and Océ Van der Grinten, paragraph 45).
Poleg tega člen 5(1) Direktive za izognitev dvojnemu obdavčevanju določa oprostitev pri viru odtegnjenega davka v državi članici odvisne družbe, takrat, ko ta razdeli dobiček svoji matični družbi, vsaj kadar ima ta najmanj 25 % kapitala odvisne družbe (zgoraj navedene sodbe Denkavit in drugi, točka 22; Epson Europe, točka 20; Athinaïki Zythopoiia, točka 25, in Océ Van der Grinten, točka 45).
The directive aims thus to avoid double taxation, in economic terms, of profits which a subsidiary established in one Member State distributes to its parent company established in another Member State, in other words, to avoid taxation of distributed profits, first, in the hands of the subsidiary and, then, in the hands of the parent company (see, to that effect, AthinaikiZithopiia, paragraph 5).
Namen Direktive je tako izognitev ekonomskemu dvojnemu obdavčevanju dobička, ki ga odvisna družba iz ene države članice razdeli svoji matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici, se pravi izognitev temu, da bi bil razdeljeni dobiček prvič obdavčen pri odvisni družbi in drugič pri matični družbi (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Athinaïki Zythopoiia, točka 5).
However, pursuant to Article 4(2) of the directive, each Member State is to retain the option of providing that any charges relating to the holding in the subsidiary may not be deducted from the taxable profits of the parent company, subject to the qualification that where, in such a case, the management costs relating to the holding are fixed as a flat rate, the fixed amount may not exceed 5% of the profits distributed by the subsidiary.
Vendar na podlagi člena 4(2) Direktive vsaka država članica ohrani možnost, da predpi�e, da se stro�ki, ki se nana�ajo na delež v odvisni družbi, ne smejo odbiti od obdavčljivega dobička matične družbe, pri čemer je pojasnjeno, da kadar so v takem primeru stro�ki upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na ta delež, fiksni kot splo�na stopnja, fiksno določeni znesek ne sme presegati 5 % dobička, ki ga razdeli odvisna družba.
Moreover, pursuant to Article 5(2) to (4) of the directive, certain Member States were authorised, during a transitional period, to levy a withholding tax on profits distributed by resident subsidiaries to their parent company established in another Member State.
Poleg tega je bilo na podlagi člena 5, od (2) do (4), Direktive nekaterim državam članicam omogočeno, da v prehodnem obdobju odmerjajo pri viru odtegnjeni davek od dobička, ki ga odvisne družbe rezidentke razdelijo svoji matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
According to the national legislation applicable in this case, the fixed amount of nondeductible costs and expenses, with which Article 4(2) of the directive is concerned, is fixed at 5% of distributed profits, including tax credits.
Na podlagi nacionalne ureditve, ki se uporablja v postopku v glavni stvari, zna�a fiksno določeni znesek pristojbin in stro�kov, ki jih ni mogoče odbiti in na katere se nana�a člen 4(2) Direktive, 5 % od razdeljenega dobička, vključno z davčnimi odbitki.
Regarding the term ‘tax credit’, it should be pointed out that both the national court, in the grounds of its decision, and BFCM and the Commission of the European Communities, in the written observations which they have submitted to the Court, rely on the judgment in Océ Van der Grinten, in which the Court held that the tax credit in question in that case, namely an ‘avoir fiscal’, constitutes a fiscal instrument designed to avoid economic double taxation of profits distributed in the form of dividends and does not constitute income from shares (see Océ Van der Grinten, paragraph 56).
Glede pojma davčni odbitek je treba opozoriti na to, da tako predložitveno sodi�če v obrazložitvi svoje odločbe kot tudi BFCM in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti v stali�čih, ki sta jih predložili Sodi�ču, omenjajo zgoraj navedeno sodbo Océ Van der Grinten, v kateri je Sodi�če presodilo, da je davčni odbitek, ki ga je obravnavalo, to je avoir fiscal, davčni instrument za izogibanje ekonomskemu dvojnemu obdavčevanju dobička, razdeljenega v obliki dividend in ne dohodek od vrednostnih papirjev (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Océ Van der Grinten, točka 56).
However, as the Advocate General noted at point 33 of her Opinion, the judgment in Océ Van der Grinten dealt with a tax levied on a tax credit which did not possess the characteristics of a withholding tax on distributed profits (see Océ Van der Grinten, paragraph 55).
Vendar pa se, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 33 sklepnih predlogov, zgoraj navedena sodba Océ Van der Grinten nana�a na dajatev, obračunano od avoir fiscal, ki nima značilnosti pri viru odtegnjenega davka na razdeljeni dobiček (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Océ Van der Grinten, točka 55).
That case concerned a tax credit designed to offset the tax paid by the distributing company and not a tax credit designed to offset tax already paid by the shareholder.
V navedeni zadevi je �lo za avoir fiscal kot nadomestilo za davek, ki ga je plačala družba razdeljevalka dividend, in ne za davčni odbitek kot nadomestilo za davek, ki ga je že plačal delničar.
It is apparent from the order for reference and from the submissions made at the hearing before the Court by BFCM and the French Government, that the tax credits at issue in this case are tax credits made available for the purpose of offsetting the withholding taxes to which the parent company is subject in the Member State of the subsidiary.
Iz predložitvene odločbe ter iz navedb BFCM in francoske vlade na obravnavi pri Sodi�ču pa izhaja, da so davčni odbitki, ki se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, davčni odbitki, priznani kot nadomestilo za pri viru odtegnjeni davek, ki ga mora matična družba plačati v državi članici odvisne družbe.
The aim of the tax credits is thus to offset the tax already paid by the shareholder and the judgment in Océ Van der Grinten cannot, therefore, provide an answer to the question referred.
Navedeni davčni odbitki so torej namenjeni nadomestilu za davek, ki ga je že plačal delničar, tako da v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Océ Van der Grinten ni mogoče najti odgovora na to vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
That point having been made, it should, first, be pointed out that the wording of Article 4(2) of the directive does not preclude the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding of the parent company in the subsidiary.
Po tej ugotovitvi je treba poudariti, prvič, da besedilo člena 4(2) Direktive ne nasprotuje vključitvi davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež matične družbe v odvisni družbi.
As the Advocate General noted at point 34 of her Opinion, the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, means that it is in fact the total amount of profit distributed, within the meaning of that provision, which is received by the parent company and to which the rate of 5% will be applied.
Kot je namreč poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 34 sklepnih predlogov, vključitev davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive zagotavlja, da je skupni znesek razdeljenega dobička v smislu te določbe dejansko tisti, ki ga prejme matična družba in glede katerega se bo uporabila 5-odstotna stopnja.
Second, it should be pointed out that those credits are intended to avoid double taxation of profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, from a juridical perspective, in other words, to prevent those profits being taxed in the hands of the parent company, first, by withholding tax in the Member State of the subsidiary and, second, in the Member State where the parent company is established.
Drugič, treba je ugotoviti, da so navedeni odbitki na pravni ravni namenjeni izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju dobička, ki ga odvisna družba razdeli svoji matični družbi, se pravi izognitvi temu, da bi bil ta dobiček prvič obdavčen pri matični družbi v obliki pri viru odtegnjenega davka v državi članici odvisne družbe in drugič v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež matična družba.
Consequently, taking into account tax credits granted to the parent company in calculating the proportion of costs and expenses relating to the holding in the subsidiary allows the amount of profits distributed by that subsidiary and the equivalent amount which is, in the end of the day, actually at the parent company’s disposal in respect of that distribution to be reflected, by neutralising the impact of the withholding tax levied in the hands of the parent company by the Member State of the subsidiary.
Zato upo�tevanje davčnih odbitkov, ki so bili priznani matični družbi pri izračunu deleža pristojbin in stro�kov, ki se nana�ajo na delež v odvisni družbi, lahko odraža znesek dobička, ki ga je slednja razdelila, ta znesek pa je enak znesku, ki matični družbi iz tega naslova na koncu dejansko ostane, s čimer se nevtralizira vpliv pri viru odtegnjenega davka, s katerim država članica odvisne družbe obdavči matično družbo.
As the French and German Governments rightly argued in their observations submitted to the Court, the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, thus complies with the objective of neutrality, from the tax point of view, as regards the crossborder distribution of profits from a subsidiary to its parent company established in another Member State.
Kot sta francoska in nem�ka vlada pravilno navedli v stali�čih, ki sta jih predložili Sodi�ču, je vključitev davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive v skladu s ciljem davčne nevtralnosti čezmejnega razdeljevanja dobička odvisne družbe svoji matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
In that context, the national court wishes, however, to know whether fiscal neutrality is unaffected by the fact that the tax credits cannot always be set off against the tax payable by the parent company, as is mentioned in paragraph 17 of this judgment.
V takem primeru pa predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali davčne nevtralnosti ne prizadene dejstvo, da se navedeni davčni odbitki ne odbijejo vedno od davka, ki ga dolguje matična družba, kot izhaja iz točke 17 te sodbe.
In that regard, it must be pointed out, first, that, under the scheme laid down by the directive, where a parent company has a holding of at least 25% in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member State, the imposition of a withholding tax in the latter State is generally prohibited by virtue of Article 5(1) of the directive.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti na eni strani na to, da je v okviru sistema, ki je bil uveden z Direktivo, takrat ko ima matična družba najmanj 25 % kapitala odvisne družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, na podlagi člena 5(1) Direktive v tej drugi državi članici načeloma prepovedana obdavčitev s pri viru odtegnjenim davkom.
In circumstances such as those arising in this case, certain Member States were permitted, during the transitional periods allowed to them, to levy such a withholding tax in accordance with Article 5(2) to (4) of the directive.
V takih okoli�činah, kot so v postopku v glavni stvari, so v prehodnem obdobju nekatere države članice vseeno lahko odmerjale tak pri viru odtegnjeni davek, in sicer na podlagi člena 5, od (2) do (4), Direktive.
As the Advocate General noted at point 36 of her Opinion, the directive does not require a Member State to provide for the set off of such a withholding tax, where that Member State has, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the directive, opted for the exemption method.
Vendar, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 36 sklepnih predlogov, Direktiva ne določa, da mora država članica predpisati odbijanje takega pri viru odtegnjenega davka, kadar se je ta država članica na podlagi člena 4(1) Direktive odločila za sistem oprostitve.
In that respect, a Member State which has opted for the exemption method cannot be criticised for offseting the withholding tax charged in the
V teh okoli�činah državi članici, ki se je odločila za sistem oprostitve, ni mogoče očitati, da kompenzira pri viru odtegnjeni davek v državi članici odvisne družbe s priznanjem davčnega odbitka in hkrati določa, da je mogoče
Member State of the subsidiary by the grant of a tax credit, while at the same time limiting the right to set off the tax credit to cases where the recipient parent company redistributes the dividends received within five years to its own shareholders.
2008 – ZADEVA C-27/07 navedeni davčni odbitek odbiti samo, če matična družba prejemnica prejete dividende v roku petih let razdeli svojim delničarjem.
Second, it should be borne in mind that Article 4(2) of the directive allows a Member State to set the management costs which are not deductible at a fixed amount which may not exceed 5% of the profits distributed by the subsidiary, without distinguishing between a situation in which that Member State has opted for the exemption method and one in which it has opted for the credit method.
Na drugi strani je treba poudariti, da člen 4(2) Direktive državi članici omogoča, da stro�ke upravljanja, ki jih ni mogoče odbiti, opredeli kot fiksno določeni znesek, ki ne presega 5 % dobička, ki ga razdeli odvisna družba, in pri tem ne razlikuje med primeroma, ko se je ta država članica odločila za sistem oprostitve in ko se je odločila za sistem odbijanja.
It follows that, with respect to the concept of distributed profits, that provision makes no distinction between cases where the State is subject to the requirement to provide for the set-off of the withholding tax charged in the Member State of the subsidiary and cases where it is not subject to such a requirement.
Iz tega sledi, da s to določbo pri pojmu distribuirani dobiček ni določeno razlikovanje po tem, ali je navedena država dolžna predpisati odbijanje pri viru odtegnjenega davka v državi članici odvisne družbe ali tega ni dolžna storiti.
While it is true that, under national legislation such as the legislation at issue in this case, where there is no redistribution of the profits received by the parent company to its own shareholders within five years, the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, contributes to an increase in the tax burden on the parent company, such an effect is the result of the withholding tax imposed by the Member State of the subsidiary, in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) to (4) of the directive: in that respect, Article 4(1) of the directive imposes, where the exemption method is applied, no obligation to ensure that the withholding tax is set off against the amount of tax payable.
Čeprav v okviru take nacionalne ureditve, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, kadar matična družba dobička, ki ga je prejela, svojim delničarjem ne razdeli v roku petih let, vključitev davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive, zagotovo prispeva k povečanju davčnega bremena matične družbe, pa je tak vpliv posledica pri viru odtegnjenega davka v državi članici odvisne družbe v skladu s členom 5(1) in od (2) do (4) Direktive, za katerega člen 4(1) Direktive v okviru sistema oprostitve ne določa kakr�ne koli obveznosti zagotovitve odbijanja navedenega pri viru odtegnjenega davka od zneska dolgovanega davka.
Thus, it is not the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, which affects the tax neutrality of the crossborder distribution of profits from a subsidiary to its parent company established in another Member State, but rather the possibility which the directive allows for a withholding tax to be levied in the Member State of the subsidiary affecting the parent company.
Davčno nevtralnost čezmejnega razdeljevanja dobička odvisne družbe svoji matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici tako bolj kot vključitev davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive prizadene možnost, ki jo daje Direktiva, da se v državi članici odvisne družbe s pri viru odtegnjenim davkom obdavči matično družbo.
In any event, the inclusion of tax credits — as a mechanism designed to avoid juridical double taxation — in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, cannot fall within the scope of Article 7(2) of the directive, which does not affect the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation of dividends alone.
Vključitev davčnih odbitkov, kot mehanizem za izogibanje pravnemu dvojnemu obdavčevanju, v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive vsekakor ne spada na področje člena 7(2) Direktive, ki ne vpliva na uporabo nacionalnih ali pogodbenih določb o odpravi ali zmanj�anju samo ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend.
Consequently, the answer to the question referred must be that the concept of ‘profits distributed by the subsidiary’, within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 4(2) of the directive, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which includes in those profits tax credits which have been granted in order to offset a withholding tax levied by the Member State of the subsidiary in the hands of the parent company.
Zato je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba pojem „dobič[ek], ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“ v smislu člena 4(2), zadnji stavek, Direktive razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, na podlagi katere so v navedeni dobiček vključeni davčni odbitki, ki so bili priznani kot nadomestilo za davek, ki je bil matični družbi odtegnjen pri viru v državi članici odvisne družbe.
The concept of ‘profits distributed by the subsidiary’, within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which includes in those profits tax credits which have been granted in order to offset a withholding tax levied by the Member State of the subsidiary in the hands of the parent company.
Pojem „dobič[ek], ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“ v smislu člena 4(2), zadnji stavek, Direktive Sveta 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, na podlagi katere so v navedeni dobiček vključeni davčni odbitki, ki so bili priznani kot nadomestilo za davek, ki je bil matični družbi odtegnjen pri viru v državi članici odvisne družbe.
Case C-124/07
Zadeva C-124/07
(Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of services relating to insurance transactions — Insurance brokers and insurance agents)
„Šesta direktiva o DDV – Storitve, povezane z zavarovalnimi transakcijami – Zavarovalni posredniki in zavarovalni zastopniki“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 3 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davki – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Oprostitve, določene s Šesto direktivo