natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where all companies in a group are tax resident in the same Member State, the subsidiary will be taxed on the profits out of which the dividend is paid and the parent
Kadar so vse družbe v skupini davčne rezidentke v isti državi članici, se bo obdavčil dobiček odvisne družbe, iz katerega so bile izplačane dividende, dividende, ki jih je prejela matična družba pa se bodo obdav-
Member States granting such tax credits in respect of dividends will want to be sure that company tax has in fact been paid on the
Države članice, ki so podelile take davčne odbitke v zvezi z dividendami, bodo hotele biti gotove, da se je dejansko plačal davek
2 — 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 (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).
2 – Direktiva Sveta 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str. 6).
The Directive has subsequently been amended but (according to the applicant) the main proceedings concern the original version only.
Direktiva je bila kasneje spremenjena, vendar (glede na navedbe tožeče stranke) spor o glavni stvari zadeva le izvirno besedilo.
Imputation systems therefore provide for the imposition of a special, usually advance, tax on companies paying dividends which attract a tax credit.
Sistemi odbitka tako nalagajo poseben, običajno vnaprej plačljivi, davek družbam, ki izplačajo dividende, kar podeli pravico do davčnega odbitka. Francija je včasih imela tak davčni odbitek, imenovan précompte mobilier. 4
When a parent company receives dividend income from a foreign subsidiary, the income has therefore usually already been taxed twice — it has been subject to, first, the foreign corporation tax on the profits of the subsidiary out of which the dividend is paid, payable by the subsidiary, and, second, foreign withholding tax on the dividend itself, representing the tax payable by the parent company (but actually deducted at source and remitted to the foreign tax authorities by the subsidiary).
Ko matična družba pridobi dohodek od dividend odvisne družbe, je bil ta dohodek tako običajno že dvakrat obdavčen – prvič je bil podvržen tujemu davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki se plača od dobička, iz katerega so izplačane dividende, ki ga mora plačati odvisna družba, in drugič, tujemu pri viru odtegnjenemu davku od dividend samih, ki predstavlja davek, ki ga mora plačati matična družba (ki pa se dejansko odtegne pri viru in ga odvisna družba nakaže tujim davčnim organom).
This again is economic double taxation.
To je spet ekonomsko dvojno obdavčevanje.
If the dividend is subject to both withholding tax in the Member State of the subsidiary and corporation tax in the Member State of the parent company, that company will pay tax on the same income in two Member States.
Če je dividenda podvržena pri viru odtegnjenemu davku v državi članici odvisne družbe in davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb v državi članici matične družbe, bo ta družba plačala davek od istega dohodka v dveh državah članicah. To je pravno dvojno obdavčevanje.
Where a group of companies comprises a parent company established in one Member State and one or more subsidiaries established in one or more other Member States, the crossborder payment of dividends by subsidiary to parent will obviously raise different tax issues.
Kadar skupino družb sestavlja matična družba, ki ima sedež v eni državi članici in ena odvisna družba ali več takih, ki imajo sedež v eni državi članici ali več drugih državah članicah, bo čezmejno izplačevanje dividend odvisne družbe matični družbi očitno odprlo različna davčna vpra�anja.
In order to reduce or eliminate such economic and/or juridical double taxation of the dividend, most Member States have historically granted relief to recipients of dividends resident for tax purposes in their territory, either unilaterally or pursuant to a double taxation convention, using either the exemption method or the credit method.
Da bi odpravila ali zmanj�al tako ekonomsko in/ali pravno dvojno obdavčevanje dividend, je večina držav članic zgodovinsko podeljevala olaj�avo prejemnikom dividend, ki so bili rezidenti za davčne namene na njihovem ozemlju, in sicer enostransko ali na podlagi sporazuma proti dvojnemu obdavčevanju, in sicer z uporabo metode oprostitve ali metode odbitka.
Most Member States tax companies resident within their territory on their foreign income, which has historically included dividends paid by foreign subsidiaries.
Večina držav članic obdavči družbe, ki imajo sedež na njihovem ozemlju, od dohodka iz tujine, ki je zgodovinsko vključeval dividende, ki jih izplačajo tuje odvisne družbe.
Most Member States also tax income of non-resi-dents arising within their territory, and have historically deducted tax at source on crossborder dividends.
Večina držav članic obdavči tudi dohodek nerezidentov, ki je bil pridobljen na njihovem ozemlju, in zgodovinsko odtegne davek od čezmejnih dividend pri viru.
Such withholding tax ensures that the Member State of the subsidiary receives tax payable by shareholders whom it cannot reach by direct assessment.
Tak, pri viru odtegnjeni, davek zagotavlja, da država članica odvisne družbe pobere davek, ki ga morajo plačati delničarji, ki jim ne more odmeriti davka.
Under the exemption method, qualifying foreign income is completely exempted from domestic corporate or income tax.
V skladu z metodo oprostitve je upravičen tuji dohodek popolno opro�čen domačega davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in
Article 3(1)(a) requires Member States to attribute the status of parent company at least to any company 6 which is resident for tax purposes in one Member State and has a minimum holding of 25% 7 in the capital of a company of another Member State (defined in Article 3(1)(b) as a ‘subsidiary’).
Člen 3(1)(a) zahteva od držav članic, da pripi�ejo status matične družbe najmanj vsaki družbi, 6ki je rezidentka za davčne namene v eni državi članici in ima najmanj 25-odstotni delež 7v kapitalu družbe druge države članice (opredeljena v členu 3(1)(b) kot „odvisna družba“).
Under the tax treaties concluded by France with other Member States, such a foreign tax credit (the crédit d’impôt étranger) is given to a parent company established in France on the distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in another Member State where that distribution has been subject to a withholding tax levied by the other Member State.
V skladu z davčnimi sporazumi, ki jih je Francija sklenila z drugimi državami članicami, je tak tuji davčni odbitek (credit d’impôt étranger) podeljen matični družbi s sedežem v Franciji od distribucije dobička odvisne družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, kadar je bila ta distribucija podvržena pri viru odtegnjenemu davku, ki ga je pobrala druga država članica.
The foreign tax credit is equal to the amount of the withholding tax.
Tuji davčni odbitek je enak znesku pri viru odtegnjenega davka.
Article 4(1) provides that, where a parent company resident in one Member State receives a dividend from a subsidiary resident in another Member State, the Member State of the parent company is either to refrain from taxing the dividend (the exemption method) or to tax it but to authorise the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax due that fraction of the corporation tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to the profits distributed via that dividend (the credit method).
Člen 4(1) določa, da, kadar matična družba rezidentka v eni državi članici prejme dividendo od odvisne družbe rezidentke v drugi državi članici, se država članica matične družbe vzdrži obdavčevanja dividende (metoda oprostitve) ali jo obdavči in hkrati dovoli matični družbi, da odbije od zneska izračunanega davka del davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki se nana�a na dobiček distribuiran z dividendami in ga je plačala odvisna družba (metoda odbitka).
By virtue of Article 4(2), however, Member States may provide that any charges relating to the holding and any losses resulting from the distribution of the profits
Vendar lahko v skladu s členom 4(2) vsaka država članica predpi�e, da se stro�ki, ki se nana�ajo na delež, in izgube, ki izhajajo iz distribucije dobička odvisne družbe,
The Directive seeks to eliminate the tax disadvantage suffered by companies from different Member States, by comparison with companies of the same Member State, where they seek to cooperate by forming groups of parent companies and subsidiaries. 5
Namen Direktive je odpraviti davčne pomanjkljivosti, ki jih v nasprotju z družbami v isti državi članici morajo trpeti družbe iz različnih držav članic, kadar žele sodelovati tako, da oblikujejo skupine matičnih in odvisnih družb. 5
6 — More precisely, any company which takes one of the forms listed in the Annex to the Directive and which is subject to one of the taxes listed in Article 2(c).
6 – Natančneje, vsaka družba, ki ima obliko, ki je navedena v prilogi Direktive, in je podvržena enemu od davkov, na�tetih v členu 2(c).
7 — That minimum has been reduced to 20% with effect from 2 February 2004 and to 15% with effect from 1 January 2007, and is to be reduced to 10% with effect from 1 January 2009: Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003 amending Directive 90/435/EEC (OJ 2004 L 7, p. 41).
7 – Ta minimum se je zmanj�al na 20 % od 2. februarja 2004 dalje in na 15 % od 1. januarja 2007 ter se bo zmanj�al na 10 % 1. januarja 2009: Direktiva Sveta 2003/123/ES z dne 22. decembra 2003 o spremembah Direktive 90/435/EGS (UL 2004, L 7, str. 41).
By virtue of Article 1(2), the Directive ‘shall not preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of fraud or abuse’.
V skladu s členom 1(2) Direktiva „ne izključuje uporabe notranjih ali na sporazumih temelječih določb, ki so potrebne za preprečevanje goljufij ali zlorab“.
The Directive required implementation by 1 January 1992, subject to the transitional provisions in Article 5.
Direktiva se je morala izvesti do 1. januarja 1992, ob upo�tevanju prehodnih določb v členu 5.
Article 5(1) requires Member States to exempt from withholding tax profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company.
Člen 5(1) zahteva od držav članic, da je dobiček, ki ga odvisna družba distribuira svoji matični družbi, opro�čen pri viru odtegnjenega davka.
Greece, Germany and Portugal, however, benefit from derogations which permit them, during different transitional periods, to impose withholding tax on ‘profits distributed’ by subsidiaries to parent companies of other Member States. 8
Vendar lahko Grčija, Nemčija in Portugalska koristijo odstopanja, ki jih dopu�čajo, da med različnimi prehodnimi obdobji naložijo pri viru odtegnjeni davek na „dobiček, ki ga distribuirajo“ njene odvisne družbe matičnim družbam v drugih državah članicah. 8
Relevant national legislation 9
Upoštevna nacionalna zakonodaja 9
Article 7(2) provides:
Člen 7(2) določa:
Accordingly, Article 216 of the Code général des impôts 10 (‘Article 216 CGI’) provides that net income from holdings giving entitlement to application of the tax regime for parent
(v nadaljevanju: člen 216 CGI) določa, da
‘This Directive shall not affect the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation of dividends, in particular provisions relating to the payment of tax credits to the recipients of dividends.’
„Ta direktiva ne vpliva na uporabo notranjih ali na sporazumih temelječih določb, ki so namenjene odpravi ali zmanj�anju ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend, zlasti
9 — As described by the referring court, which was hearing an application for annulment brought on 22 December 2003.
9 – Kot je opisalo predložitveno sodi�če, ki je obravnavalo tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti, vloženo 22. decembra 2003. Avoir fiscal in précompte mobilier sta od takrat ukinjena (z učinkom od 1. januarja 2005).
8 — Article 5(2), (3) and (4) respectively.
8 – Člen 5(2), (3) in (4).
The transitional provisions were deleted by Directive 2003/123, cited in footnote 7.
Prehodne določbe so bile izbrisane z Direktivo 2003/123, navedeno v opombi 7.
12 The effect of this provision is that the 5% in question is added back to the parent company’s taxable income; I shall refer to it as ‘the 5% add-back’.
Posledica te določbe je, da se zadevnih 5 % ponovno v�teje v obdavčljivi dohodek matične družbe; to bom poimenovala „5-odstotno ponovno v�tetje“.
a foreign subsidiary leads to application of the précompte mobilier, tax credits may be set off against the précompte mobilier only where they are attached to dividends paid in the last five years.
če distribucija, ki jo opravi matična družba za svoje delničarje, dividend, prejetih od tuje odvisne družbe, vodi k uporabi davčnega odbitka précompte mobilier, se lahko davčni odbitki vračunajo v ta davčni odbitek le, če pripadajo dividendam, ki so bile izplačane v zadnjih petih letih.
By virtue of an extra-statu-tory concession, those tax credits may, where appropriate, also be set off against the withholding tax payable on the redistribution of dividends by the parent company to persons not resident for tax purposes, or not having their seat, in France.
V skladu z upravnim predpisom se lahko ti davčni odbitki, kadar je to primerno, vračunajo v pri viru odtegnjeni davek, ki ga je treba plačati od dividend, ki jih matična družba razdeli osebam, ki za davčne namene niso rezidentke ali nimajo svojega sedeža v Franciji.
The reference in the present case
Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje v tej zadevi
An administrative circular 13 (‘the administrative circular’) states that the tax credit referred to in Article 216 CGI comprises both the domestic tax credit (avoir fiscal) for income arising in France and the foreign tax credit (crédit d’impôt étranger) for income from subsidiaries with their seat in a country with which France has a double taxation treaty.
Upravna okrožnica 13določa, da davčni odbitek iz člena 216 CGI zajema domači davčni odbitek (avoir fiscal) za dohodek, ki se ga pridobi v Franciji, in tuji davčni odbitek (credit d’impôt étranger) za dohodek, ki se ga pridobi od odvisnih družb, ki imajo sedež v državi, s katero ima Francija sklenjen sporazum o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
11 — Article 145 of the Code général des impôts, which provided at the material time that the tax regime for parent companies was applicable to companies subject to corporate tax at the normal rate holding at least 5% of the capital of the company in question.
11 – Člen 145 Code général des impôts je v upo�tevnem času določal, da se je davčni režim za matične družbe uporabljal za družbe, ki so bile podvržene davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb po normalni stopnji, če so bile udeležene vsaj s 5 % v kapitalu zadevne družbe.
12 — Subject to a cap: it may not exceed, for each tax period, the total amount of the costs and expenses of any nature incurred by the holding company in the course of the same period.
12 – Upo�tevajoč zgornjo mejo: ne sme presegati, za vsako davčno obdobje, skupnega zneska kakr�nih koli stro�kov in bremenitev, ki jih je holdin�ka družba utrpela med istim obdobjem.
13 — Of 25 June 1999, published in the Bulletin officiel des impôts 4 H-4-99; see in particular paragraph 15.
13 – Z dne 25. junija 1999, objavljen v Bulletin officiel des impôts 4 H-4-99, glej zlasti točko 15.
It maintained that, by including in the basis of calculation for the 5% addback foreign tax credits paid pursuant to the tax treaties concluded by France with other States, that circular failed to comply with Article 4 of the Direct- ive, which limits the amount of the expenses which are not deductible from the taxable income of the parent company, when set at
Menila je, da je z vključitvijo tujih davčnih obdbitkov, ki se plačajo v skladu z davčnimi sporazumi, ki jih je sklenila Francija z drugimi državami, v podlago za izračun 5-odstotnega ponovnega v�tetja, ta okrožnica kr�ila člen 4 Direktive, ki omejuje vi�ino stro�kov, ki se ne morejo odbiti od obdavčljivega dohodka matične družbe, kadar je ta natančno določen, in sicer
5% addback does not affect the principle of fiscal neutrality of the crossborder distribution of profits.
14 davčni odbitki podeljeni ob razdelitvi dividend matični družbi s strani odvisne družbe, ki ima sedež v drugi državi članici, vračunani v davek, ki ga mora plačati matična družba, le kadar so te dividende ponovno razdeljene v petletnem roku.
On the other hand, if the parent company does not redistribute its dividends within that period, the Conseil d’État agrees that the 5% addback has the effect of raising its taxable income above the limit fixed by Article 4 of the Directive and of affecting, to that extent, the fiscal neutrality of the crossborder distribution of profits.
Po drugi strani, če matična družba ne razdeli svojih dividend v tem roku, se Conseil d’État strinja, da se zaradi 5-odstotnega ponovnega v�tetja poveča njen obdavčljivi dohodek čez znesek, ki je natančno določen v členu 4 Direktive in vpliva, do neke mere, na davčno nevtralnost čezmejnih distribucij dobička.
It considers that the question arises whether, in that case, the resulting increase in corporation tax paid by the parent company may be permitted under Article 7(2) of the Directive.
Meni, da se pojavi vpra�anje, ali je v tem primeru nastalo povečanje davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga mora plačati matična družba, dovoljeno glede na člen 7(2) Direktive.
The Conseil d’État notes that under the tax treaties concluded by France with other Member States a tax credit is given to a parent company established in France on the distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in another Member State where that distribution of profits has been subject to a withholding tax levied by the other Member State.
Conseil d’État navaja, da je v skladu z davčnimi sporazumi, ki jih je sklenila Francija z drugimi državami članicami, davčni odbitek podeljen matični družbi s sedežem v Franciji od distribucije dobička odvisne družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, kadar je bila ta distribucija dobička podvržena pri viru odtegnjenem davku, ki ga je pobrala druga država članica.
15 That tax credit is equal to the amount of the withholding tax thus deducted.
15Ta davčni odbitek je enak znesku pri viru odtegnjenega davka, ki je bil tako odbit.
The 5% addback places the parent company in a situation identical to that in which it would have been if there had been no withholding tax provided that the tax credit can be entirely set off against the tax payable by the parent company.
5-odstotno ponovno v�tetje postavlja matično družbo v enak položaj, v kakr�nem bi bila, če se davek pri viru ne bi odtegnil, če je lahko davčni odbitek v celoti vračunan v davek, ki ga mora plačati matična družba.
The Conseil d’État has accordingly referred the following question to the Court:
V teh okoli�činah je Conseil d’État Sodi�ču prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
14 — Banque Fédérative also argued before the Conseil d’État that: (i) Article 216 CGI infringed Article 4(2) of the Directive in providing that the 5% addback could not exceed, for each tax period, the total amount of the costs and expenses of any nature incurred by the holding company in the course of that period; and (ii) the inclusion of the avoir fiscal (in the case of subsidiaries established in France) and the crédit d’impôt étranger (in the case of subsidiaries established in third countries) in the basis on which the 5% addback was calculated discriminated against parent companies established in France contrary to Articles 43 and 56 EC.
14 – Banque Fédérative je pred Conseil d’État trdila tudi, da (i) člen 216 CGI kr�i člen 4(2) Direktive, ker določa, da 5-odstotno ponovno v�tetje ne sme presegati, za vsako davčno obdobje, skupnega zneska kakr�nih koli stro�kov in bremenitev, ki jih utrpi holdin�ka družba med tem obdobjem; (ii) vključitev avoir fiscal (za odvisne družbe s sedežem v Franciji) in credit d’impôt étranger (za odvisne družbe s sedežem v tretjih državah), na podlagi katerih je bil izračunano 5-odstotno ponovno v�tetje, diskriminira matične družbe s sedežem v Franciji v nasprotju s členi 43 in 56 ES.
The Conseil d’État dismissed both those arguments and has not referred any questions concerning them.
Conseil d’État je zavrnil obe trditvi in glede njih ni predložil nobenega vpra�anja.
15 — Clearly this situation should no longer arise, since Article 5(1) of the Directive requires that profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company in another Member State should be exempt from withholding tax.
15 – Očitno se taka okoli�čina ne sme več ponoviti, saj člen 5(1) Direktive zahteva, da mora biti dobiček, ki ga odvisna družba distribuira svoji matični družbi v drugi državi članici opro�čen pri viru odtegnjenega davka.
The present reference arises out of an application for annulment of national legislation rather than a dispute concerning a specific tax assessment.
Trenutna navedba izhaja bolj iz zahteve po razglasitvi ničnosti nacionalne zakonodaje, kot pa iz spora glede določene odmere davka.
It is therefore possible that the Court’s ruling will affect earlier years of assessment when the transitional provisions of Article 5(2), (3) and (4) were still applicable.
Tako je mogoče, da bo sodba Sodi�ča vplivala na zgodnej�a leta odmere, v katerih so se prehodne določbe člena 5(2), (3) in (4) �e vedno uporabljale.
‘The addback to the taxable income of a parent company established in France of 5% of the tax credits attributed upon the distri-
„Ponovno v�tetje 5 % davčnih odbitkov, podeljenih pri distribuciji dobička odvisne družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici Evropske
The French and German Governments, however, argue that the legislation is compatible with Article 4(2) without recourse to Article 7(2).
Vendar francoska in nem�ka vlada trdita, da je zakonodaja združljiva s členom 4(2), ne da bi se bilo treba sklicevati na člen 7(2).
I accordingly propose to consider, first, the logically prior question whether the national legislation at issue is in principle contrary to Article 4(2) of the Directive before turning, second, to the question whether, if so, it is none the less lawful by virtue of the derogation in Article 7(2) thereof (and/or, as the French Government submits, by virtue of Article 1(2)).
Temu primerno predlagam, da se odgovori, prvič, na prvo vpra�anje, ali zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja nasprotuje členu 4(2) Direktive, preden se, drugič, posveti vpra�anju, ali je tako oziroma ali je kljub temu zakonita zaradi odstopanja v njenem členu 7(2) (in/ali kot meni francoska vlada glede na člen 1(2)).
bution of profits by a subsidiary established in another Member State of the European Union where those distributed profits have been subject in that other State to a withholding tax, has no effect on the taxation level of the parent company if the latter is able to set off all the tax credits against the tax payable.
unije, kadar je bil ta distribuiran dobiček v tej drugi državi predmet pri viru odtegnjenega davka, v obdavčljivi dobiček matične družbe s sedežem v Franciji ne vpliva na vi�ino obdavčitve matične družbe, kadar ta lahko v celoti vračuna davčne odbitke v davek, ki ga je treba plačati.