natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While, prior to 1 July 1997, a life insurance company could, by way of exception, elect that that section would apply as regards dividends received from resident companies as part of its pensions business, such an election was not, on the other hand, possible as regards dividends received from nonresident companies as part of such business.
Če se je pred 1. julijem 1997 zavarovalnica za življenjsko zavarovanje lahko izjemoma odločila za uporabo tega člena, kar zadeva dividende, prejete na podlagi svojih pokojninskih poslov od družb rezidentk, pa je bila taka izbira izključena, kar zadeva dividende, prejete na podlagi takih poslov od družb nerezidentk.
Such a system would be contrary to Article 56 EC, if dividends paid by companies established in another Member State to insurance companies established in the United Kingdom were treated, for tax purposes, less favourably than those paid by companies established in the United Kingdom (see, to that effect, Verkooijen, cited above, paragraphs 34 to 38, and Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 64).
Tak sistem bi bil v nasprotju s členom 56 ES, če bi bile dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici zavarovalni�kim družbam s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu, na davčni ravni obravnavane manj ugodno kot dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Verkooijen, točke od 34 do 38, ter Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 64).
In that regard, it is not apparent from the decision making the reference whether, in light of the fact that the permitted election, as regards dividends of national origin, entailed the waiver of tax credits, a company receiving dividends of foreign origin, which could not exercise such an election, was treated less favourably because of that fact alone.
V zvezi s tem iz predložitvene odločbe ne izhaja, ali je bila glede na dejstvo, da je dopu�čena izbira, kar zadeva domače dividende, pomenila odpoved davčnim odbitkom, družba, ki je prejemala tuje dividende in ki ni mogla uveljavljati take izbire, obravnavana manj ugodno samo zaradi tega dejstva.
It is for the national court to establish whether such was the case.
Naloga predložitvenega sodi�ča je, da preveri, ali je to držalo.
On the other hand, since it is clear from the decision making the reference that companies with a less than 10% shareholding in the company making the distribution were not entitled to relief in respect of corporation tax paid by that company in the Member State in which it was resident, those companies were, contrary to Article 56 EC, subject to less favourable tax treatment.
Nasprotno, ker iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da družbe z manj kot 10-odstotnim deležem v družbi razdeljevalki dividend niso bile upravičene do olaj�ave iz naslova davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga je ta družba plačala v državi članici, v kateri je rezidentka, so bile navedene družbe podvržene manj ugodni davčni obravnavi, ki je v nasprotju s členom 56 ES.
According to the United Kingdom Government, it is legitimate and proportionate to restrict the availability of the corporation tax relief granted to resident com panies to the amount of any withholding tax levied on the dividend.
Po mnenju vlade Združenega kraljestva naj bi bilo zakonito in sorazmerno, da se tem družbam rezidentkam olaj�ava davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb prizna samo v vi�ini morebitnega pri viru odtegnjenega davka na dividendo.
Practical obstacles would preclude a company with a less than 10% shareholding in the company making the distribution from benefiting from a tax credit corresponding to the tax actually paid by the latter.
Praktične ovire naj bi namreč nasprotovale temu, da se družbi z manj kot 10-odstotnim deležem v družbi razdeljevalki dividend prizna davčni odbitek, ki ustreza davku, ki ga je slednja dejansko plačala.
Unlike a tax credit given in respect of withholding tax, such a tax credit could be granted only after lengthy and complex checks had been carried out.
V nasprotju z davčnim odbitkom, odobrenim iz naslova pri viru odtegnjenega davka, bi bilo tak davčni odbitek mogoče priznati samo po dolgih in zapletenih preverjanjih.
It is therefore legitimate to set a threshold by reference to the size of the relevant shareholding.
Zakonito naj bi torej bilo, da se določi prag glede na velikost zadevnega deleža.
It is true that, when introducing mechanisms designed to prevent or mitigate distributed profits being liable to a series of charges to tax, it is in principle for Member States to determine the category of taxpayers entitled to benefit from those mechanisms and, for that purpose, to set thresholds based on the shareholdings which
Res je načeloma naloga držav članic, da ob uvedbi mehanizmov za preprečevanje ali zmanj�anje verižnega obdavčevanja razdeljenega dobička določijo kategorijo davčnih zavezancev, ki lahko uporabljajo te mehanizme, in v ta namen uvedejo pragove na podlagi deleža, ki ga imajo ti davčni zavezanci v zadevnih družbah razdeljevalkah dividend. Člen 4 Direktive Sveta 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu
2008 — CASE C-201/05 taxpayers have in the companies making the distributions in question.
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str.
It is only in the case of Member State companies having a minimum shareholding of 25% in a company of another Member State that Article 4 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 in different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6), read in conjunction with Article 3, in the version in force at the time of the events in the main proceedings, requires Member States, if they do not exempt profits received by a resident parent company from a subsidiary resident in another Member State, to authorise the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax due not only the amount of the withholding tax levied by the Member State in which the subsidiary is resident, but also the fraction of the tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to those profits (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 67).
6) v povezavi s členom 3 te direktive v različici, ki se je uporabljala v času dejanskega stanja v glavni stvari, samo za družbe držav članic, ki imajo v kapitalu družbe iz druge države članice delež najmanj 25 %, državam članicam nalaga, da tudi če ne oprostijo dobička, ki ga je od odvisne družbe, rezidentke druge države članice, prejela matična družba rezidentka, tej matični družbi dovolijo, da odbije od zneska izračunanega davka ne le znesek pri viru odtegnjenega davka, ki ga je odmerila država članica, v kateri je odvisna družba rezidentka, ampak tudi del davka, ki se nana�a na ta dobiček in ga je plačala odvisna družba (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 67).
However, while, in the case of shareholdings to which Directive 90/435 does not apply, Article 4 of that directive accordingly does not prevent a Member State from taxing profits paid by a nonresident company to a resident company, without granting any relief to the latter in respect of corporation tax paid by the former in the Member State in which it is resident, a Member State may exercise the power to do so only to the extent to which, under its national law, dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company are also subject to tax in the hands of the company receiving the dividends, without the latter being entitled to relief for the corporation tax paid by the company making the distribution (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 68).
Vendar, čeprav pri deležih, za katere se ne uporablja Direktiva 90/435, njen člen 4 torej ni ovira za to, da bi država članica obdavčila dobiček, ki ga je izplačala družba nerezidentka družbi rezidentki, ne da bi ji priznala kakr�no koli olaj�avo glede davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga je plačala prva družba v državi, v kateri je rezidentka, lahko država članica izvaja to pristojnost samo, če so na podlagi njenega nacionalnega prava tudi dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, obdavčene pri družbi prejemnici dividend, ne da bi lahko uživala olaj�avo glede davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga je plačala družba razdeljevalka dividend (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 68).
The mere fact that it is for a Member State to determine for such holdings whether, and to what extent, the imposition of a series of charges to tax on distributed profits is to be avoided does not of itself mean that it may operate a system under which foreignsourced dividends and nationally-sourced dividends are not treated in the same way (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 69).
Namreč zgolj dejstvo, da je pri takih deležih naloga države članice, da določi, ali in v kolik�ni meri se je treba izogniti verižnemu obdavčevanju razdeljenega dobička, kljub temu ne pomeni, da sme izvajati ureditev, v kateri se tuje in domače dividende ne obravnavajo enako (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 69).
Furthermore, irrespective of the fact that a Member State may, in any event, choose between a number of systems in order to prevent or mitigate the imposition of a
Poleg tega ne glede na dejstvo, da ima država članica vsekakor na voljo različne možne sisteme za preprečevanje ali zmanj�anje verižnega obdavčevanja razdeljenega
TEST CLAIMANTS IN THE CFC AND DIVIDEND GROUP LITIGATION series of charges to tax on distributed profits, the difficulties that may arise in determining the tax actually paid in another Member State cannot justify a restriction on the free movement of capital such as that which arises under the legislation at issue in the main proceedings (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 70 and the caselaw cited).
TEST CLAIMANTS IN THE CFC AND DIVIDEND GROUP LITIGATION dobička, morebitne težave pri določanju dejansko plačanega davka v drugi državi članici ne morejo upravičevati take ovire za prost pretok kapitala, kot je ovira, ki izhaja iz zakonodaje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 70, in navedena sodna praksa).
In this case, the United Kingdom Government contends, on the other hand, that such a difference in treatment is justified by the need to ensure the cohesion of the tax system.
V tej zadevi vlada Združenega kraljestva poleg tega trdi, da tako različno obravnavo upravičuje potreba po zagotovitvi doslednosti davčnega sistema.
While the tax legislation in question in the main proceedings rests on the basis of a link between the tax advantage and the corresponding levy by providing for a tax credit for dividends received from a nonresident company in which the resident
Čeprav davčna zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, sloni na zvezi med davčno ugodnostjo in izravnalnim bremenom, tako da za dividende, prejete od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima matična družba rezidentka 10 % ali več glasovalnih pravic, predvideva davčni odbitek, bi morala potreba po taki neposredni zvezi voditi
2008 — CASE C-201/05 parent company holds not less than 10% of the voting power, the need for such a direct link must in fact lead to the same tax advantage being granted to companies receiving dividends from nonresident companies, in which the resident parent company holds less than 10% of the voting power, since those companies are also obliged to pay corporation tax on distributed profits in the State in which they are resident (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 93).
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 ravno do tega, da se enaka davčna ugodnost prizna družbam, ki prejemajo dividende od družb nerezidentk, v katerih ima matična družba rezidentka manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, ker so slednje v državi, v kateri so rezidentke, prav tako dolžne plačati davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb od razdeljenega dobička (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 93).
Therefore, the restriction noted in paragraph 58 of the present order cannot be justified by the need to ensure the cohesion of the tax system.
Zato omejitev, navedena v točki 58 tega sklepa, ne more biti utemeljena s potrebo po zagotovitvi doslednosti davčnega sistema.
Accordingly, the reply to the second question must be that Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which allows an exemption from corporation tax for certain dividends received from resident companies by resident insurance companies but excludes such an exemption for similar dividends received from nonresident companies, in so far as it entails less favourable treatment of the latter dividends.
Zato je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 56 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki omogoča oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatere dividende, ki so jih zavarovalni�ke družbe rezidentke prejele od družb rezidentk, a izključuje tako oprostitev za podobne dividende, prejete od družb nerezidentk, če to pomeni manj ugodno obravnavo teh zadnjih dividend.
By its third question, the national court is asking the Court, in essence, whether Articles 43 EC, 49 EC or 56 EC are to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for the inclusion in the tax base of a resident company established in a Member State of profits made by a CFC in another Member State, where those profits are subject in that State to a lower level of taxation than that applicable in the former State and which imposes certain compliance requirements where the resident company seeks exemption from taxes already paid on the profits of that controlled company in the State in which it is resident.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje Sodi�če, ali je treba člene 43 ES, 49 ES ali 56 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo zakonodaji države članice, v kateri je po eni strani določeno, da se v davčno osnovo družbe rezidentke s sedežem v tej državi članici vključi dobiček, ki ga je TOD ustvarila v drugi državi članici, kadar za ta dobiček v njej velja raven obdavčitve, ki je nižja od ravni, ki se uporablja v prvi državi, in so po drugi strani določene nekatere zahteve skladnosti, kadar družba rezidentka namerava uporabljati oprostitev za davke, ki so že bili plačani od dobička te odvisne družbe v državi, v kateri je rezidentka.
In the first place, in Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, the Court has already had to consider the first part of that question, and, consequently, the reply given by the Court in that judgment is fully applicable in the present case.
Treba je ugotoviti, prvič, da je Sodi�če prvi del tega vpra�anja že preučilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas in da je zato odgovor Sodi�ča iz te sodbe mogoče v celoti prenesti na to zadevo.
In that judgment, the Court held that, since the legislation on CFCs concerns the taxation, under certain conditions, of the profits of subsidiary companies established outside the United Kingdom in which a resident company has a controlling holding, that legislation must be examined in the light of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 32).
V tej sodbi je Sodi�če razsodilo, da je treba zakonodajo o TOD, ker se pod določenimi pogoji nana�a na obdavčitev dobička hčerinskih družb s sedežem zunaj Združenega kraljestva, v katerih ima družba rezidentka delež, ki ji zagotavlja nadzor nad njimi, preučiti glede na člena 43 ES in 48 ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 32).
If it were to be accepted that that legislation has restrictive effects on the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, such effects must be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and do not, in any event, justify an independent examination of that legislation taking Art -icles 49 EC and 56 EC into account (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 33).
Če bi imela ta zakonodaja omejujoče učinke na svobodo opravljanja storitev in prost pretok kapitala, bi bili taki učinki neizogibna posledica morebitne ovire za svobodo ustanavljanja in nikakor ne upravičujejo samostojne preučitve navedene zakonodaje glede na člena 49 ES in 56 ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 33).
The Court then noted that the legislation on CFCs involves a difference in the treatment of resident companies on the basis of the level of taxation imposed on the company in which they have a controlling holding and that that difference in treatment creates a tax disadvantage for the resident company to which the legislation on CFCs is applicable (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraphs 43 and 45).
Sodi�če je nato navedlo, da zakonodaja o TOD družbe rezidentke različno obravnava glede na raven obdavčitve, ki velja za družbo, v kateri imajo delež, ki jim zagotavlja nadzor nad njo, in da ta razlika pri obravnavanju ustvarja davčno neugodnost za družbo rezidentko, za katero se uporablja zakonodaja o TOD (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točki 43 in 45).
Therefore, the Court held that the separate tax treatment under the legislation on CFCs and the resulting disadvantage for resident companies which have a subsidiary subject, in another Member State, to a lower level of taxation are such as to hinder the exercise of freedom of establishment by such companies, dissuading them from
Zato je Sodi�če odločilo, da različna davčna obravnava, ki izhaja iz zakonodaje o TOD, in neugodnost, ki jo ta povzroča za družbe rezidentke, ki imajo hčerinske družbe, za katere v drugi državi članici velja nižja raven obdavčitve, lahko ovirata uresničevanje svobode ustanavljanja takih družb, s tem da jih odvračata od ustanavljanja, nakupa
2008 — CASE C-201/05 establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in a Member State in which the latter is subject to such a level of taxation and that they therefore constitute a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 46).
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 ali ohranjanja hčerinske družbe v državi članici, v kateri zanjo velja taka raven obdavčitve, in zato pomenita omejitev svobode ustanavljanja v smislu členov 43 ES in 48 ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 46).
However, a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified where it specifically targets wholly artificial arrangements designed to circumvent the legislation of the Member State concerned (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 51 and the caselaw cited).
Vendar pa je nacionalni ukrep, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, lahko upravičen, če je posebej namenjen povsem umetnim konstruktom, katerih cilj je izogibanje zakonodaji zadevne države članice (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 51, in navedena sodna praksa).
It follows that, for a restriction on the freedom of establishment to be justified on the ground of prevention of abusive practices, the specific objective of such a restriction must be to prevent conduct involving the creation of wholly artificial arrangements, which do not reflect economic reality, with a view to escaping the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 55).
Iz tega sledi, da mora biti za to, da bi se omejitev svobode ustanavljanja lahko upravičila z razlogi boja proti zlorabam, poseben cilj take omejitve preprečevanje ravnanj, ki vključujejo ustvarjanje povsem umetnih konstruktov, brez gospodarske resničnosti, z namenom, da se obide davek na dobiček, ustvarjen z dejavnostjo na nacionalnem ozemlju, ki bi ga bilo običajno treba plačati (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 55).
In order to find that there is such an arrangement there must be, in addition to a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain a tax advantage, objective circumstances showing that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by Community law, the objective pursued by freedom of establishment has not been achieved (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 64 and the caselaw cited).
Ugotovitev obstoja takega konstrukta namreč poleg subjektivnega elementa v obliki volje, da se pridobi davčna ugodnost, zahteva tudi, da iz objektivnih dejavnikov izhaja, da kljub formalni izpolnitvi pogojev, določenih v pravu Skupnosti, cilj, ki se prizadeva doseči s svobodo ustanavljanja, ni bil dosežen (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 64, in navedena sodna praksa).
In those circumstances, in order for the legislation on CFCs to comply with Community law, the taxation provided for by that legislation must be excluded where, despite the existence of tax motives, the incorporation of a CFC reflects economic reality.
Da bi bila v teh okoli�činah zakonodaja o TOD v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, mora biti obdavčitev, določena v tej zakonodaji, izključena takrat, ko kljub razlogom davčne narave ustanovitev TOD ustreza gospodarski resničnosti. Ta ugotovitev mora
That finding must be based on objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties with regard, in particular, to the extent to which the CFC physically exists in terms of premises, staff and equipment (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraphs 65 and 67).
TEST CLAIMANTS IN THE CFC AND DIVIDEND GROUP LITIGATION temeljiti na objektivnih elementih, ki jih tretje osebe lahko preverijo in se zlasti nana�ajo na stopnjo fizičnega obstoja TOD v smislu prostorov, osebja in opreme (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točki 65 in 67).
In this case, it is for the national court to determine whether, as maintained by the United Kingdom Government, the motive test, as defined by the legislation on CFCs, lends itself to an interpretation which enables the taxation provided for by that legislation to be restricted to wholly artificial arrangements or whether, on the contrary, the criteria on which that test is based mean that, where none of the exceptions laid down by that legislation applies and the intention to obtain a reduction in United Kingdom tax is central to the reasons for incorporating the CFC, the resident parent company comes within the scope of application of that legislation, despite the absence of objective evidence which could indicate the existence of an arrangement of that nature.
V obravnavanem primeru mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti, ali je, kot trdi vlada Združenega kraljestva, preizkus vzgibov, kot je opredeljen v zakonodaji o TOD, mogoče razlagati tako, da omogoča omejitev uporabe obdavčitve, določene v tej zakonodaji, na povsem umetne konstrukte, oziroma nasprotno, ali merila, na katerih temelji ta preizkus, pomenijo, da – kadar se ne uporablja nobena od izjem, določenih v isti zakonodaji, in kadar je volja, da se dosežejo znižanja davka v Združenem kraljestvu, v sredi�ču razlogov, ki so privedli do ustanovitve TOD – matična družba rezidentka spada na področje uporabe navedene zakonodaje kljub neobstoju objektivnih elementov, ki bi lahko razkrili obstoj takega konstrukta.
In the first case, the legislation on CFCs should be regarded as being compatible with Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.
V prvem primeru bi bilo treba zakonodajo o TOD �teti za združljivo s členoma 43 ES in 48 ES.
In the second case, on the other hand, the view should be taken that that legislation is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraphs 72 to 74).
Nasprotno pa bi bilo treba v drugem primeru �teti, da je navedena zakonodaja v nasprotju s členo - ma 43 ES in 48 ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točke od 72 do 74).