natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
23 — I may note here that already in Cibo Participations, in its pleadings the Commission pointed out that since Article 17 of the Sixth Directive makes no provision in respect of transactions arising from an economic activity outside the scope of the Directive, it is for the Member States to determine the method by which the deduction is prohibited.
22 – Sodbi z dne 22. junija 1993 v zadevi Sofitam (C-333/91, Recueil, str. I-3513, točki 13 in 14) in z dne 14. novembra 2000 v zadevi Floridienne and Berginvest (C-142/99, Recueil, str.
See Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Cibo Participations, cited in footnote 14, point 31.
I-9567, izrek), v opombi 14 navedena sodba Cibo Participations, točka 44, in v opombi 7 navedena sodba EDM, točka 54.
However, I would stress that when apportioning input tax between economic and noneconomic activities, the Member States’ discretion is not unfettered and they must comply with certain principles resulting from the Sixth Directive as interpreted in the caselaw of the Court.
Kljub temu bi poudaril, da države članice pri razdelitvi vstopnega davka med gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti nimajo neomejene diskrecije ter da morajo upo�tevati določena načela iz Šeste direktive, kot se razlagajo v sodni praksi Sodi�ča.
The right of deduction provided for in Article 17 et seq. of the Sixth Directive is an integral part of the VAT scheme and in principle may not be limited.
Pravica do odbitka iz člena 17 in naslednjih je sestavni del sistema DDV ter je načeloma ni mogoče omejiti.
The Court has consistently held that any limitation on the right of deduction affects the level of the tax burden and must be applied in a similar manner in all the Member States. 25
Sodi�če je dosledno razsojalo, da vsaka omejitev pravice do odbitka vpliva na raven davčnega bremena in da jo je treba v vseh državah članicah uporabljati podobno. 25
The method and criteria used by the Member States for the apportionment must be such as to ensure that the objectives pursued by the Sixth Directive are respected.
Način in merila, ki jih države članice uporabilo za razdelitev, morajo zagotavljati spo�tovanje ciljev Šeste direktive.
Accordingly, they must not be contrary to the principle of fiscal neutrality on which the common system of VAT established by the Sixth Directive is based, and which precludes economic operators carrying out the same transactions from being treated differently in relation to the levying of VAT. 26
V skladu s tem ne smejo biti v nasprotju z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, na katerem temelji predvsem skupni sistem DDV, uveden s Šesto direktivo, in ki nasprotuje temu, da se gospodarski subjekti, ki opravljajo enake transakcije, obravnavajo različno glede obdavčitve z DDV. 26
24 — See, to that effect, Case C-72/05 Wollny [2006] ECR I-8297, paragraph 28.
24 – V tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 14. septembra 2006 v zadevi Wollny (C-72/05, ZOdl., str.
25 — See, in particular, Case C-62/93 BP Soupergaz [1995] ECR I-1883, paragraph 18 and the caselaw cited.
25 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 6. julija 1995 v zadevi BP Soupergaz (C-62/93, Recueil, str. I-1883, točka 18 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
Cf. also the 12th recital in the preamble to the Sixth Directive.
Glej tudi uvodno izjavo 12 preambule k Šesti direktivi.
In that regard, it should be noted that in a case concerning a different area (namely, the use of property forming part of the assets of a business for private purposes) but a similar issue, after noting that the Sixth Directive did not ‘contain the guidance necessary for defining uniformly and precisely the rules for establishing the full cost concerned’, the Court held that ‘it must be accepted that the Member States therefore have a certain margin of discretion as regards those rules provided that they do not fail to have regard
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da je Sodi�če v zadevi, ki se nana�a na drugo področje (namreč uporabo nepremičnine, ki je del aktive podjetja, v zasebne namene), vendar je podobna, po ugotovitvi, da v Šesti direktivi „ni potrebnih navodil za enotno in natančno opredelitev pravil določitve zadevnih stro�kov“, odločilo, da države članice ?uživajo? določeno stopnjo diskrecije v zvezi s temi pravili samo, če upo�te-
I am therefore of the opinion that the Court should give the following answers to the questions referred by the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht:
Zato menim, da naj Sodi�če na vpra�anji, ki ju je predložilo Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht, odgovori:
When exercising that discretion, the Member States must ensure, in particular, that the principle of fiscal neutrality is respected.’
Države članice morajo pri uporabi te diskrecije zagotoviti zlasti spo�tovanje načela davčne nevtralnosti.
2008 — CASE C-437/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-437/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany), made by decision of 5 October 2006, received at the Court on 24 October 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-437/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 5. oktobra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 24. oktobra 2006, v postopku
— the Commission of the European Communities, by D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 December 2007,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti D. Triantafyllou, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 11. decembra 2007
2008 — CASE C-437/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-437/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 2(1) in 17(5) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Securenta Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG (‘Securenta’) and the Finanzamt Göttingen (‘the Finanzamt’) concerning the scope of the right to deduct amounts of value added tax (‘VAT’).
Ta predlog je bil predložen v okviru spora med družbo Securenta Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG (v nadaljevanju: Securenta) in Finanzamt Göttingen (v nadaljevanju: Finanzamt) glede raz�iritve pravice do odbitka zneskov davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV).
Article 2 of the Sixth Directive provides:
Člen 2 Šeste direktive določa:
1. the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such;
1. dobava blaga ali storitev, ki jo davčni zavezanec, ki deluje kot tak, opravi na ozemlju države za plačilo;
Article 4 of the Sixth Directive sets out the following definitions:
V členu 4 Šeste direktive so te opredelitve:
Under Article 13B of the Sixth Directive:
Člen 13B Šeste direktive določa:
5. transactions, including negotiation but not management or safekeeping, in shares, interests in companies or associations, debentures and other securities …
5. transakcije, vključno s posredovanjem, razen upravljanja in hrambe, z delnicami, deleži v družbah ali združenjih, obveznicami in drugimi vrednostnimi papirji […]
Article 17 of the Sixth Directive is worded as follows:
Člen 17 Šeste direktive določa:
(a) value added tax due or paid within the territory of the country in respect of goods or services supplied or to be supplied to him by another taxable person;
(a) davek na dodano vrednost, ki ga je dolžan plačati ali ga je plačal za blago ali storitve, ki mu jih je dobavil ali mu jih bo dobavil drug davčni zavezanec;
(b) value added tax due or paid in respect of imported goods;
(b) davek na dodano vrednost, ki ga je dolžan plačati ali ga je plačal za uvoženo blago;
(c) value added tax due under Articles 5(7)(a) and 6(3).
(c) davek na dodano vrednost, ki ga je dolžan v skladu s členoma 5(7)(a) in 6(3).
Member States shall also grant to every taxable person the right to a deduction or refund of the value added tax referred to in paragraph 2 in so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of:
Države članice vsakemu davčnemu zavezancu tudi odobrijo pravico do odbitka ali vračila davka na dodano vrednost iz odstavka 2, če se blago in storitve uporabljajo za namene:
(a) transactions relating to the economic activities as referred to in Article 4(2) carried out in another country, which would be eligible for deduction of tax if they had occurred in the territory of the country;
(a) transakcij v zvezi z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi iz člena 4(2), opravljeni[mi] v drugi državi, ki bi bile upravičene do odbitka davka, če bi bile opravljene na ozemlju države;
As regards goods and services to be used by a taxable person both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and for transactions in respect of which it is not … only such proportion of the value added tax shall be deductible as is attributable to the former transactions.
V zvezi z blagom in storitvami, ki jih uporablja davčni zavezanec bodisi za transakcije, pri katerih je davek na dodano vrednost odbiten, […] bodisi za transakcije, pri katerih davek na dodano vrednost ni odbiten, je odbiten samo tak�en delež davka na dodano vrednost, ki se pripi�e prvim transakcijam.
However, the Member States may:
Države članice pa lahko:
(a) authorise the taxable person to determine a proportion for each sector of his business, provided that separate accounts are kept for each sector;
(a) dovolijo, da davčni zavezanec določi delež za vsako področje svoje dejavnosti, če vodi ločeno knjigovodstvo za vsako področje;
(b) require the taxable person to determine a proportion for each sector of his business and to keep separate accounts for each sector;
(b) zahtevajo, da davčni zavezanec določi delež za vsako področje svoje dejavnosti in za vsako področje vodi ločeno knjigovodstvo;
(c) authorise or require the taxable person to make the deduction on the basis of the use made of all or part of the goods and services;
(c) dovolijo ali zahtevajo, da davčni zavezanec opravi odbitek na podlagi uporabe vsega ali dela blaga in storitev;
(d) authorise or require the taxable person to make the deduction in accordance with the rule laid down in the first subparagraph, in respect of all goods and services used for all transactions referred to therein;
(d) dovolijo ali zahtevajo, da davčni zavezanec v skladu s pravilom iz prvega pododstavka opravi odbitek od vsega blaga in storitev, uporabljenih za transakcije iz tega pododstavka;
(e) provide that, where the VAT which is not deductible by the taxable person is insignificant, it is to be treated as nil.
(e) kadar je davek na dodano vrednost, ki za davčnega zavezanca ni odbiten, neznaten, določijo, da se �teje, kakor da ga ni.
In accordance with Article 19 of the Sixth Directive:
Člen 19 Šeste direktive določa:
— as numerator, the total amount, exclusive of value added tax, of turnover per year attributable to transactions in respect of which value added tax is deductible under Article 17(2) and (3);
– v �tevcu skupni znesek letnega prometa brez davka na dodano vrednost, ki se nana�a na transakcije, pri katerih je davek na dodano vrednost odbiten po členu 17(2) in (3),
— as denominator, the total amount, exclusive of value added tax, of turnover per year attributable to transactions included in the numerator and to transactions in respect of which value added tax is not deductible. …
– v imenovalcu skupni znesek letnega prometa brez davka na dodano vrednost, ki se nana�a na transakcije, vključene v �tevcu, in transakcije, pri katerih davek na dodano vrednost ni odbiten. […]
Amounts of turnover attributable to incidental real estate and financial transactions shall also be excluded.
Izključijo se tudi zneski prometa, ki se nana�ajo na priložnostne transakcije z nepremičninami in priložnostne finančne transakcije […].
In the absence of any such transactions to refer to, or where they were insignificant in amount, the deductible proportion shall be estimated provisionally, under the supervision of the tax authorities, by the taxable person on the basis of his own forecasts.
Če v preteklem letu ni bilo tak�nih transakcij ali če so bile transakcije v znesku neznatne, odbitni delež začasno določi davčni zavezanec na podlagi svojih napovedi pod nadzorom davčnega organa.
Deductions made on the basis of such provisional proportions shall be adjusted when the final proportion is fixed during the following year.’
Odbitki na podlagi tak�nega začasnega deleža se popravijo, ko se v naslednjem letu določi končni delež.“
565; ‘the UstG’) provides that certain transactions effected for consideration within the State by a trader in the course of business are to be subject to VAT.
565, v nadaljevanju: UStG) so predmet DDV transakcije, ki jih podjetnik v okviru svoje dejavnosti opravi odplačno v državi.
In accordance with Paragraph 4(8)(e) and (f) of the UStG, transactions, including negotiation but not management or safekeeping, in securities and transactions and negotiations concerning interests in companies or other associations are exempt from taxation.
V skladu s členom 4(8)(e) in (f) UStG so davka opro�čene transakcije, vključno s posredovanjem, vendar ne hramba in upravljanje, vrednostih papirjev, ter transakcije in posredovanje v zvezi z udeležbo v družbah in drugih združenjih.
Paragraph 15 of the UStG provides:
Člen 15 UStG določa:
‘(1) The trader may deduct the following amounts of input tax:
„(1) Davčni zavezanec lahko odbije naslednje zneske vstopnega davka:
1. tax shown separately in invoices … for supplies of goods or services effected by other traders for the purposes of its business …;
1. davek, ki je prikazan ločeno na računih […], ki so jih izdali drugi davčni zavezanci za dobavo blaga ali storitev, opravljenih za njegovo podjetje […];
2. the turnover tax on imports in respect of goods imported for the purposes of its business …;
2. plačani davek na dodano vrednost na uvoz blaga, ki je bilo v državo uvoženo za njegovo podjetje […];
3. the tax in respect of the intraCommunity acquisition of goods for the purposes of its business.
3. davek v zvezi s pridobivanjem blaga v Skupnosti za njegovo podjetje.
(2) There shall be no deduction of tax in respect of the supply, importation or intraCommunity acquisition of goods, or in respect of supplies of services, which the trader uses for the purposes of the following transactions:
(2) Odbitka vstopnega davka ni za dobave, uvoz in pridobivanje blaga v Skupnosti ali drugih storitev, ki jih podjetnik opravi za izvajanje naslednjih transakcij:
1. exempt transactions,
1. transakcije, ki so davka opro�čene,
(4) If a trader uses any goods supplied, imported or acquired in the Community for the purposes of its business, or a service supplied to it, only in part for effecting transactions in respect of which the right to deduct is excluded, there shall be no deduction of the part of the input tax which is economically attributable to those transactions.
(4) Če davčni zavezanec za namene svojega poslovanja uporablja blago, ki je bilo uvoženo, dobavljeno ali pridobljeno v Skupnosti za njegovo podjetje, ali drugo storitev le delno za izvajanje transakcij, za katere je odbitek vstopnega davka izključen, del vstopnega davka, ki ga je treba gospodarsko pripisati poslom, za katere je pravica do odbitka izključena, ni odbiten.
The trader may make an appropriate estimate of the non-deductible amounts.
Davčni zavezanec lahko ustrezno oceni delne zneske, ki jih ni mogoče odbiti.
Securenta’s activities in the financial year in dispute — 1994 — involved acquiring, managing and selling real estate, securities, financial holdings and investments of all types.
Dejavnosti družbe Securenta leta 1994, ki je predmet obravnave postopka v glavni stvari, so bile pridobitev, upravljanje in prodaja nepremičnin in prenosljivih vrednostnih papirjev ter udeležba in naložbe vseh vrst.
Securenta acquired the capital necessary for this by means of the issue of
Kapital, potreben za te dejavnosti, je
SECURENTA shares and atypical silent partnerships.
SECURENTA zadevna družba pridobila z izdajo delnic in atipičnih tihih deležev.
While offering shares for public subscription, it admitted a multitude of silent partners.
Pri tem je sprejela mnogo tihih družbenikov kot javna družba.
The persons thus associated provided capital which the company reinvested.
Tako udeležena javnost ji je prispevala kapital, ki ga je družba Securenta nato naložila.
During 1994, Securenta carried out taxable transactions worth DEM 2 959 800.
Leta 1994 je družba Securenta opravila obdavčljive transakcije v vi�ini 2.959.800 DEM. Njen celotni promet je zna�al 6.480.006 DEM.
That amount included dividend earnings of DEM 226 642 and earnings of DEM 1 389 930 from the sale of securities, giving a total of DEM 1 616 572.
Ta znesek je vključeval dividende v vi�ini 226.642 DEM in dobiček od prodaje vrednostnih papirjev v znesku 1.389.930 DEM, torej skupno 1.616.572 DEM.
Out of input tax totalling DEM 6 838 535, the greater part — DEM 6 161 679 — was not attributable to specific output transactions.
Od vstopnega DDV v skupnem znesku 6.838.535 DEM ga večji del, in sicer 6.161.679 DEM, ni bilo mogoče pripisati posebnim izstopnim transakcijam.
In the administrative proceedings to determine Securenta’s fiscal obligations, Securenta stated that, as all the input VAT paid related to expenditure connected with the acquisition of new capital, it was deductible on the ground that the issue of shares was linked to the reinforcement of the company’s capital and that transaction had benefited the company’s economic activity in general.
Med upravnim postopkom za določitev davčnih obveznosti družbe Securenta je slednja zatrjevala, da bi se lahko odbili vsi zneski vstopnega DDV, ki so bili odmerjeni na stro�ke v zvezi s pridobivanjem novega kapitala, ker je bila izdaja delnic povezana s povečanjem njenega kapitala in ker je ta transakcija splo�no prispevala k njeni gospodarski dejavnosti.
The Finanzamt refused deduction of the input tax relating to expenditure connected with the issue of atypical silent partnerships (DEM 4 171 424), as well as the input tax relating to expenditure connected with Securenta’s leasing transactions (DEM 676 856).
Finanzamt je zavrnil odbitek, na eni strani, zneskov vstopnega DDV, ki so bili odmerjeni na stro�ke izdaje atipičnih tihih deležev, in sicer 4.171.424 DEM, ter na drugi strani znesek vstopnega DDV, ki je bil odmerjen za transakcije najema, ki jih je realizirala družba Securenta, in sicer 676.856 DEM.
According to the Finanzamt, input tax not attributable to specific output transactions remained in the amount of DEM 1 990 254.
Finanzamt je tako znesek vstopnega DDV, ki se naj ne bi neposredno nana�al na določene izstopne transakcije, ocenil na 1.990.254 DEM.
Of this the Finanzamt allowed a right of deduction in respect of the proportion calculated in accordance with a formula of approximately 45% — based on the application of a criterion linked to the size of the investments made — resulting in deductible input tax in the amount of DEM 1 567 616 and a refund for the 1994 financial year of DEM 1 123 647.
Na tej podlagi je Finanzamt določil delež na podlagi razdelitvenega ključa približno 45 %, ki je rezultat uporabe merila, povezanega z obsegom realiziranih naložb, tako da so zneski odbitnega vstopnega DDV zna�ali 1.567.616 DEM in zneski, ki jih je bilo treba vrniti za leto 1994, 1.123.647 DEM.
Securenta accordingly brought an action against that decision.
Družba Securenta je tako zoper to odločbo vložila tožbo. S sodbo z dne 18. oktobra 2001 je Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht tožbo zavrnilo.
Securenta appealed against that decision to the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) which, by judgment given on 18 November 2004, set aside the judgment of the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht.
Družba Securenta je zoper to odločbo vložila pritožbo pri Bundesfinanzhof, ki je s sodbo z dne 18. novembra 2004 razveljavilo sodbo, ki jo je izdalo Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht.
The Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht, hearing the case afresh, then decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Slednje, ki je ponovno odločalo o sporu, je tako prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
Securenta submits that all the input VAT paid in respect of the expenditure connected with the acquisition of capital is deductible, since a share issue serves to increase the financial resources of a company for the benefit of its economic activity in general.
Družba Securenta navaja, da so vsi zneski vstopnega DDV, ki so bili odmerjeni na stro�ke, povezane s pridobivanjem kapitala, odbitni, ker izdaja delnic služi povečanju finančnih sredstev družbe v splo�no korist njene gospodarske dejavnosti.
In order to determine the amount covered by the right to deduct, it is necessary to define the proportion of assessable and taxable transactions, on the one hand, to assessable and exempt transactions, on the other.
Za določitev obsega upravičenosti do odbitka bi bilo treba določiti razmerje med obdavčljivimi in davku zavezanimi transakcijami na eni strani ter obdavčljivimi in davka opro�čenimi transakcijami na drugi strani.
The German Government takes the view that deduction of the input VAT paid is allowable only to the extent that the expenditure connected with the issue of shares and silent partnerships is to be attributed to a business activity.
Nem�ka vlada meni, da se odbitek vstopnega DDV dovoli le, če je stro�ek, povezan z izdajo delnic in tihih deležev, mogoče pripisati podjetni�ki dejavnosti.
The German Government explains that, in the main proceedings, part of the capital thus acquired was allocated to areas in which no business activity was carried out, that is to say, the acquisition of financial holdings.
Navedena vlada pojasnjuje, da se je v zadevi v glavni stvari del tako pridobljenega kapitala prerazporedil na področja, na katerih se ni opravljala nobena podjetni�ka dejavnost, namreč udeležba v kapitalu.
It is therefore appropriate to apportion the input VAT paid between business activity and private activity, using a formula based on the nature of the investment.
Torej naj bi bilo treba zneske vstopnega DDV razdeliti med podjetni�ko in nepodjetni�ko dejavnost po investicijskem ključu.
The Portuguese Government submits that the input VAT paid is deductible only with regard to transactions effected in the framework of business activity and that the investment formula is the more appropriate method of apportionment.
Portugalska vlada navaja, da je vstopni DDV odbiten le v delu, ki se nana�a na transakcije v okviru podjetni�ke dejavnosti, in da je investicijski ključ najprimernej�a metoda razdelitve.
The United Kingdom Government points out that the proportion of the overhead inputs that is linked to a noneconomic activity is not taken into account for the purposes of calculating the deductibility of input VAT paid.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva poudarja, da delež skupnih stro�kov na vstopu, ki so povezani z negospodarsko dejavnostjo, ni zajet v izračunu odbitka vstopnega DDV. Ta vlada glede metode razdelitve meni, da je Šesta direktiva ne določa in da je prepu�čena diskreciji držav članic.
The Commission of the European Communities points out that the tax treatment of a business activity depends on the applicability of one of the factors giving rise to the right to exemption.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti pojasnjuje, da je davčno obravnavanje podjetni�ke dejavnosti odvisno od možnosti uporabe enega od dejavnikov, ki upravičujejo oprostitev.
While transactions in securities are exempt from VAT, supplies of immovable goods may, where appropriate, be taxed.
Medtem ko so transakcije z vrednostnimi papirji opro�čene DDV, se naj bi izročitev nepremičnin v določenih okoli�činah lahko obdavčila.