natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Is there an advantage which offsets the disadvantage suffered by Deutsche Shell in this case?
Ali v tej zadevi obstaja ugodnost, ki izravna neugodnost, ki jo je utrpela družba Deutsche Shell?
Germany argues that the advantage of the existing system is that a profit arising from a favourable shift in exchange rates would also not be taken into consideration.
Nemčija trdi, da je ugodnost obstoječega sistema v tem, da se ne bi upo�teval niti dobiček iz ugodnega nihanja menjalnih tečajev.
In AMID, Belgium likewise argued that the inequalities created by the Belgian tax legislation were justified as they would benefit a company which was in the inverse position to AMID.
Belgija je v sodbi AMID prav tako trdila, da so bile razlike v obravnavanju, ki so nastale zaradi belgijskega davčnega prava, upravičene, ker so koristile družbi, ki je v obratnem položaju glede na družbo AMID.
Such a hypothetical company would be in a better position than a domestic company with no establishments in Luxembourg.
Tak�na hipotetična družba bi bila v bolj�em položaju kot nacionalna družba brez obratov v Luksemburgu.
The Court rejected that argument. 23
Sodi�če je to trditev zavrnilo 23.
However, Deutsche Shell has suffered an exchange rate loss.
Družba Deutsche Shell pa je vendarle utrpela tečajno izgubo.
It cannot transform that into an exchange rate profit.
Tega ni mogoče spremeniti v tečajni dobiček.
There is thus no compensatory advantage being offered to the claimant.
Tožeča stranka tako nima na voljo ugodnosti za izravnavo.
In that respect, the present case is analogous to Case C-385/00 de Groot.
V tem je ta zadeva enaka zadevi de Groot 22.
22In both cases the claimant cannot claim any fiscal advantage, and is burdened instead with the impossibility of deducting a loss.
V obeh zadevah tožeča stranka ne more uveljavljati davčne ugodnosti in je namesto tega obremenjena s tem, da izgube ne more odtegniti.
The Commission argues that fiscal coherence would, indeed, be better preserved by taking the effect of an exchange rate fluctuation into account.
Komisija trdi, da bi bila davčna skladnost veliko bolj varovana z upo�tevanjem nihanja menjalnih tečajev.
Both the Commission and Deutsche Shell emphasise that, were the exchange rate losses instead an exchange rate profit, failing to include that element in the tax computation would make the resulting financial gain ‘argent blanc’.
Komisija in družba Deutsche Shell opozarjata na to, da bi v primeru, če ne bi �lo za tečajne izgube, ampak za tečajne dobičke, neupo�tevanje tega dejavnika pri davčni osnovi pripeljalo do tako imenovane „bele“ finančne ugodnosti („argent blanc“).
They also point out that the existing system disproportionately benefits a company which gains from exchange rate fluctuation, whilst offering no compensatory advantage to a company which suffers financially from
Prav tako poudarjata, da ima od obstoječega sistema nesorazmerno ugodnost družba, v korist katere nihajo menjalni tečaji, medtem
23 — See paragraphs 24 to 28.
23 – Glej točke od 24 do 28.
DEUTSCHE SHELL an adverse exchange rate fluctuation.
DEUTSCHE SHELL ko ne ponuja nobenih ugodnosti družbi, ki zaradi neugodnih nihanj menjalnih tečajev utrpi finančno �kodo.
That cannot be seen as coherent.
Tega ni mogoče �teti za skladno.
Would a qualified right of deduction, which included a currency loss in the basis for assessment in the State of origin, but allowed it to be deducted as operating expenditure only in so far as no taxfree profits were obtained from the branch in the other Member State, 24 be sufficient to ensure compliance with Article 43 EC?
Ali bi bile z omejeno pravico do odbitka, na podlagi katere bi bila negativna tečajna razlika v državi izvora sicer vključena v davčno osnovo, ampak bi jo bilo mogoče odbiti kot stro�ek poslovanja zgolj, če obrat v drugi državi članici ni pridobil opro�čenih dobičkov 24, izpolnjene zahteve iz člena 43 ES?
I do not consider that the results generated in a situation such as the present by the German tax system can be justified by reference either to the balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States or by the need to preserve fiscal coherence.
Menim, da izidov, ki nastanejo v položaju, kot je v tej zadevi na podlagi nem�kega davčnega sistema, ni mogoče upravičiti niti s sklicevanjem na uravnoteženo razdelitev davčnih pristojnosti med državami članicami niti s potrebo po ohranitvi davčne skladnosti.
If (quod non) either justification were in principle made out, I would in any event regard the total exclusion of losses caused by exchange rate fluctuations as disproportionate.
Tudi če bi (quod non) pri�la v po�tev katera izmed teh utemeljitev, v vsakem primeru menim, da bi bilo popolno neupo�tevanje izgub, ki nastanejo zaradi nihanj menjalnih tečajev, nesorazmerno.
The reference from the Finanzgericht states that operating expenditure is precluded from being deducted from the profits of the parent company if it has a direct economic link to taxfree income.
V predložitveni odločbi Finanzgerichta je navedeno, da se stro�ki poslovanja ne odtegnejo od dobička matične družbe, če so v neposredni zvezi z opro�čenim dohodkom.
In the opinion of the Finanzgericht, the income from the sale of Deutsche Shell’s shares to Edison is taxfree in Germany, as it has already been taxed in Italy.
Finanzgericht meni, da je dohodek od prodaje delnic s strani družbe Deutsche Shell družbi Edison v Nemčiji opro�čen davka, ker je bil obdavčen že v Italiji.
I therefore suggest that the Court answer the first question posed by the Finanzgericht in the affirmative.
Sodi�ču zato predlagam, naj na prvo vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo Finanzgericht, odgovori pritrdilno.
However, the Finanzgericht does not mention that the currency loss was not taken into account in assessing this taxation.
Finanzgericht pa vendar ni omenilo, da negativna tečajna razlika pri določitvi tega davka ni bila upo�tevana.
The referring court also took the view that there was a clearly defined direct connection between the currency loss and Deutsche Shell’s taxfree profit derived from its branch in Italy.
Predložitveno sodi�če je tudi menilo, da je med negativno tečajno razliko in opro�čenim dobičkom družbe Deutsche Shell iz njenega obrata v Italiji obstajala jasno opredeljena neposredna zveza.
It explains that, even if it
Trdi, da čeprav bilo mogoče vključiti negativno tečajno razliko v davčno osnovo nem�kega davka, bi bila negativna tečajna razlika na podlagi
If (as I propose) the first question is answered in the affirmative, it becomes necessary to consider the referring court’s second question, which concerns the extent to which the State of origin may exclude
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje (v skladu z mojim predlogom) pritrdilen, je treba preučiti drugo vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča, ki se nana�a na to, v kak�nem obsegu lahko država izvora izključi možnost odbitka negativne tečajne razlike, ki nastane pri zaprtju obrata v drugi državi članici.
24 — Under Paragraph 3c of the EStG; see point 5 above.
24 – Odstavek 3c EStG; glej zgoraj točko 5.
The Netherlands has not dealt specifically with the second question.
Nizozemska drugega vpra�anja ni posebej razdelala.
were possible to include the currency loss in the basis for the assessment of German tax, the effect of the relevant legislation 25is that the currency loss would be deductible only in so far as it exceeded the branch’s taxfree profits.
upo�tevnih predpisov 25 lahko odbita zgolj, če bi presegala opro�čene dobičke obrata.
As the currency loss was less than the total taxfree profits obtained from the transfer of the assets of the branch to Sierra and the sale of the shares in that company, the referring court reasons that German law would operate to exclude the Finanzamt from taking into account this currency loss.
Ker je bila negativna tečajna razlika manj�a od celotnih opro�čenih dobičkov, pridobljenih pri prenosu sredstev obrata na družbo Sierra in s prodajo delnic v tej družbi, je predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da Finanzamt na podlagi nem�kega prava take negativne tečajne razlike ne sme upo�tevati.
If this is the case, the referring court is interested in whether Article 43 EC, read with Article 48 EC, precludes such a result.
V tem primeru želi predložitveno sodi�če izvedeti, ali člen 43 ES v povezavi s členom 48 ES nasprotuje takemu izidu.
The Finanzamt argues that these losses cannot be treated within Germany as isolated losses for the purposes of the 1925 Convention.
Finanzamt trdi, da takih izgub v Nemčiji ni mogoče obravnavati kot ločenih izgub v smislu Konvencije iz leta 1925.
Such a conclusion is precluded by the wording of the Convention, which focuses on income.
Temu naj bi nasprotovalo besedilo Konvencije, ki se osredotoča na dohodek.
The currency losses formed only a portion of the Italian branch’s profit and loss account.
Negativne tečajne razlike so bile le del bilance stanja italijanskega obrata.
As Deutsche Shell had achieved an overall profit for 1992 through its Italian branch, even when the currency loss is taken into account, no deductible loss under Paragraph 2a(3) of the EStG ever arose.
Ker je družba Deutsche Shell v letu 1992 prek italijanskega obrata kljub negativni tečajni razliki ustvarila dobiček, ji na podlagi odstavka 2a(3) EStG sploh ni nastala izguba, ki bi jo bilo mogoče odbiti.
The observations addressing this question are scant.
Stali�ča so v zvezi s tem vpra�anjem zelo skopa.
Deutsche Shell and the Commission confine themselves to the first question, adding only that if the answer to the first question is yes, then an affirmative answer should also be given to the second question.
Družba Deutsche Shell in Komisija se omejujeta na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, in pri tem zgolj dodajata, da je treba v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti pritrdilno tudi na drugo vpra�anje.
As I have already indicated, however, the currency losses were not apparent in ITL, and were therefore not taken into account in the Italian tax assessment of the branch’s profits.
Kot sem že navedla, negativne tečajne razlike v ITL niso bile vidne in se zato niso upo�tevale pri obdavčenju dobičkov italijanskega obrata.
Germany states that this is not a restriction on freedom of establishment, and that such a restriction as is imposed is limited to the case where a loss has a direct economic
Nemčija trdi, da pri tem ne gre za omejitev svobode ustanavljanja in da če je taka omejitev naložena, je omejena na
It therefore seems perverse to construe the EStG in a way that classifies the currency loss itself as part of (or directly linked to) the profits of the establishment which were taxfree in Germany.
Zato bi bilo protinaravno razlagati EStG tako, kot da je negativna tečajna razlika sama del dobičkov (ali v neposredni zvezi z dobički) obrata, ki so bili v Nemčiji opro�čeni.
25 — Set out in points 4 and 5 above.
25 – Izpostavljeno zgoraj v točkah 4 in 5.
DEUTSCHE SHELL invisible during the Italian tax computation in ITL, it follows that it must be so taken into account during the German tax calculation of Deutsche Shell’s global profits.
DEUTSCHE SHELL izguba upo�teva v celoti (kot vsaka poslovna izguba). Ker pa pri italijanskem obdavčenju v ITL ni bila vidna, jo je treba upo�tevati pri nem�kem obdavčenju svetovnega dobička družbe Deutsche Shell.
To address this issue from the perspective offered by the referring court in its second question misses the crucial point of the case, which is that the German and Italian systems have created a regime in which a currency loss cannot be taken into account by either tax authority.
Če obravnavamo to težavo s stali�ča predložitvenega sodi�ča, se v drugem vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje zgre�i odločilna točka te zadeve, ki je, da sta nem�ki in italijanski sistem ustvarila tako ureditev, pri kateri niti davčni organi ene niti davčni organi druge države ne morejo upo�tevati negativne tečajne razlike.
In my view, a proper interpretation of Article 43 EC read with Article 48 EC requires such a loss to be taken into account in its entirety (like any other operating loss). Given that it was
Menim, da se v skladu s primerno razlago člena 43 ES v povezavi s členom 48 ES zahteva, da se taka
I therefore propose that the second question also be answered in the affirmative.
Zato predlagam, naj se tudi na drugo vpra�anje odgovori pritrdilno.
In the light of the above, I consider that the questions referred by the Finanzgericht Hamburg should be answered as follows:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno predlagam, naj se na predloženi vpra�anji Finanzgericht Hamburg odgovori tako:
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-293/06
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-293/06 oprostitve v skladu s členom 3(1) ter (3) in členom 11.
Articles 3(1), 3(3) and 11.1(c) of the 1925 Double Taxation Convention between Germany and Italy, from the basis of assessment for German tax, even though the currency loss cannot form part of the establishment’s profits to be assessed for purposes of taxation in Italy and thus cannot be taken into account in either the State of origin or in the State in which the establishment is situate.
1(c) Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja med Nemčijo in Italijo iz leta 1925 od davčne osnove nem�kega davka, čeprav negativna tečajna razlika ne more biti del dobička obratov, ki ga je treba ugotoviti za italijansko obdavčenje, in se tako ne upo�teva niti v državi izvora niti v državi obrata.
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), made by decision of 8 June 2006, received at the Court on 3 July 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-293/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 8. junija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 3. julija 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-293/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-293/06 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodna tajnica: C.
DEUTSCHE SHELL gives the following
DEUTSCHE SHELL izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 48 EC).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 52 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 43 ES) in 58 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 48 ES).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Deutsche Shell GmbH (‘Deutsche Shell’) and the Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg (‘the Fi- nanzamt’) concerning the tax treatment by the authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany of the monetary depreciation, upon repatriation, of startup capital granted to Deutsche Shell’s permanent establishment in another Member State.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Deutsche Shell GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Deutsche Shell) in Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg (v nadaljevanju: Finanzamt) zaradi davčnega obravnavanja, s strani organov Zvezne republike Nemčije, zmanj�anja vrednosti dotacije v obliki kapitala (v nadaljevanju: dotacijski kapital), odobrene stalni poslovni enoti navedene družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, med vračanjem tega kapitala.
The Double Taxation Convention
Konvencija o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja
Under Article 3 of the Double Taxation Convention concluded on 31 October 1925 between Germany and Italy (RGBl. 1925 II, p.
V členu 3 konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, sklenjene 31. oktobra 1925 med Nemčijo in Italijo (RGBl. 1925 II, str.
1146) (‘the Convention’):
1146; v nadaljevanju: konvencija), je določeno:
2008 — CASE C-293/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-293/06
Article 11 of the Convention provides:
V členu 11 konvencije je določeno:
‘Personal taxes relating to the total income of the taxable person shall be levied by each of the States parties to this Convention in accordance with the following provisions:
„Osebni davki na skupen dohodek davčnega zavezanca se plačajo vsaki državi pogodbenici v skladu z naslednjimi določbami:
(c) arising from commercial, industrial or other similar activities, including income from the operation of marine transport facilities,
(c) od izvajanja trgovske, industrijske ali kakr�nekoli druge poklicne dejavnosti, vključno z dohodki od poslovanja podjetja za pomorsko plovbo,
… shall be subject to the same provisions as those determined for such income in the relevant articles.
[…] veljajo iste določbe kot za te dohodke.
The German tax law applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings
Nemška davčna zakonodaja, ki je veljala v času dejanskega stanja v glavni stvari
637) (‘the KStG’) provides:
637, v nadaljevanju: KStG) je določeno:
(1) capital companies (companies limited by shares, limited liability companies);
(1) kapitalske družbe (delni�ke družbe, družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo);
Under Paragraph 12 of the German Tax Code (Abgabenordnung):
V členu 12 nem�kega davčnega zakonika (Abgabenordnung) je določeno:
Any facilities or permanent place of business used for the activities of a company shall be deemed to be an establishment.
Poslovna enota je vsaka oprema ali vsaka naprava, ki se uporablja za dejavnosti podjetja.
In particular, the following shall be regarded as establishments:
Kot poslovne enote se obravnavajo zlasti:
— branches.’
– podružnice.“
Paragraph 2a(3) of the Law on income tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) of 7 September 1990 (BGBl. 1990 I, p.
V členu 2a(3) zakona o dohodnini (Einkommensteuergesetz) z dne 7. septembra 1990 (BGBl. 1990 I, str.
1898) (‘the EStG’) states as follows:
1898, v nadaljevanju: EStG) je določeno:
‘Where under a double taxation convention the income of a tax payer with unlimited liability deriving from the industrial or commercial activities of a permanent establishment situated abroad is exempt … from income tax, a loss arising in connection with that income according to the provisions of Germany tax law shall, on the
„Če mora biti na podlagi konvencije proti dvojnemu obdavčevanju oseba, ki je neomejeno davčno zavezana, opro�čena […] plačila dohodnine za dohodke od industrijske ali trgovske dejavnosti stalne poslovne enote, ustanovljene v tujini, se mora na zahtevo davčnega zavezanca izguba, ki nastane pri teh dohodkih na podlagi določb nem�kega davčnega prava, pri izračunu skupnega zneska dohodkov odtegniti v delu, v katerem bi jo davčni zavezanec lahko nadomestil ali odtegnil, če ne bi moral biti opro�čen plačila dohodnine, in v delu, v katerem presega pozitivne dohodke, ki
DEUTSCHE SHELL application of the taxpayer, be deducted when calculating the amount of the income to the extent that the taxpayer would be able offset or deduct that loss if the income were not exempt from tax and in so far as it exceeds positive income which is to be exempt under that convention deriving from industrial or commercial activities from other permanent establishments situated in the same foreign country. … To the extent that, in one of the subsequent tax years, the income deriving from the industrial or commercial activities of permanent establishments situated in that foreign State yields a positive amount overall, which is to be exempt in accordance with that convention, the amount deducted in accordance with the first and second sentences must, with respect to the relevant tax period, be taken into account once again for the calculation of the total amount of income.’
DEUTSCHE SHELL jih ima iz industrijske ali trgovske dejavnosti drugih stalnih poslovnih enot v isti tuji državi in za katere je na podlagi te konvencije opro�čen plačila davka. […] Če med poznej�im obdavčenjem iz dohodkov, ki jih ima zavezanec iz industrijske ali trgovske dejavnosti stalnih poslovnih enot v tej tuji državi in za katere je na podlagi te konvencije opro�čen plačila davka, izhaja skupno pozitivni znesek, je treba znesek, ki je bil odtegnjen v skladu s prvim in drugim stavkom, ponovno upo�tevati pri izračunu skupnega zneska dohodkov za upo�tevno obdobje odmere davka. […]“
Paragraph 3c(1) of the EStG provides that:
V členu 3c(1) EStG je določeno:
‘Where it has a direct economic link to taxfree income, expenditure may not be deducted as constituting operating expenditure or costs of acquiring, securing and maintaining income.’
„Če so odhodki v neposredni gospodarski zvezi s prihodki, za katere je zavezanec opro�čen plačila davka, se jih ne sme odtegniti kot stro�ke podjetja ali stro�ke v zvezi s pridobivanjem dohodkov.“
Deutsche Shell, a capital company with its registered office and principal place of business in Germany, set up a permanent establishment in Italy in 1974 for the
Družba Deutsche Shell, ki je kapitalska družba s sedežem in upravo v Nemčiji, je leta 1974 v Italiji ustanovila stalno poslovno enoto za raziskovanje in izkori�čanje nahajali�č zemeljskega plina in nafte (v nadaljevanju: stalna poslovna enota). Med letoma
The profits repatriated to Germany from the permanent establishment were deducted from the ‘startup capital’ in amounts calculated on the basis of the exchange rate for the German mark (DEM) and Italian lira (ITL) on the day on which each payment was made by that establishment to Deutsche Shell.
Dobički, ki jih je stalna poslovna enota vrnila v Nemčijo, so bili odbiti od dotacijskega kapitala za vrednosti, izračunane po tečaju nem�ke marke (DEM) in italijanske lire (ITL) na vsak dan, ko je ta poslovna enota opravila izplačilo družbi Deutsche Shell.
The depreciation of the value of the ‘start-up’ capital granted to the permanent establishment was not taken into account in Italy for the taxation of its profits, as the basis of assessment was established in Italian lira.
Zmanj�anje vrednosti dotacijskega kapitala, odobrenega stalni poslovni enoti, ni bilo upo�tevano v Italiji v okviru obdavčitve dobičkov navedene poslovne enote, ker je bila davčna osnova izračunana v italijanskih lirah.
In Germany Deutsche Shell has unlimited liability to tax on its worldwide income under Paragraph 1(1) of the KStG.
V Nemčiji je družba Deutsche Shell neomejeno davčno zavezana za svoje svetovne dohodke na podlagi člena 1(1), točka 1, KStG.
On 28 February 1992, Deutsche Shell transferred the assets of its permanent establishment to an Italian subsidiary, Sierra Gas Srl, a transaction for which it had to reveal its hidden reserves.
Družba Deutsche Shell je 28. februarja 1992 prenesla sredstva svoje stalne poslovne enote na italijansko hčerinsko družbo, to je družbo Sierra Gas Srl, za kar je morala razkriti svoje skrite rezerve.
The transfer of those assets put an end to the permanent establishment.
S prenosom teh sredstev je prenehala stalna poslovna enota.
On the same day Deutsche Shell transferred its shares in Sierra Gas Srl to Edison Gas SpA.
Družba Deutsche Shell je �e isti dan prenesla svoje deleže v družbi Sierra Gas Srl na družbo Edison Gas SpA.
The amount in Italian lira obtained as a result of the above transactions was paid to Deutsche Shell on 17 July 1992 as reimbursement of the ‘startup capital’.
Znesek v italijanskih lirah, ki je bil pridobljen na podlagi zgoraj navedenih poslov, je bil izplačan družbi Deutsche Shell 17. julija 1992 kot vračilo dotacijskega kapitala.
Deutsche Shell regarded the negative difference of DEM 122 698 502 resulting from the comparison between the amount of DEM 111 868 677 and the ‘the startup capital’ as a ‘currency loss’.
Družba Deutsche Shell je kot „negativno tečajno razliko“ obravnavala negativno razliko v vi�ini 122.698.502 DEM, ki nastane, če se primerja znesek 111.868.677 DEM z zneskom dotacijskega kapitala.
In the calculation of Deutsche Shell’s taxable income for the 1992 financial year the Finanzamt refused to take that loss into consideration in the corporation tax assessment notice it sent to Deutsche Shell on 19 September 1997.
V okviru izračuna zneska obdavčljivih prihodkov družbe Deutsche Shell za davčno obdobje 1992 Finanzamt ni upo�teval navedene izgube v odločbi o odmeri davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki jo je naslovil na to družbo 19. septembra 1997.
On 2 October 1997 Deutsche Shell entered an objection to the tax assessment notice.
Družba Deutsche Shell je 2. oktobra 1997 vložila ugovor zoper navedeno odločbo o odmeri davka.