natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, the purpose of group relief is to avoid penalising companies do not apply to legislation restricting the deduction of losses made by a permanent establishment. Finland, France, Greece,
Namen olaj�ave za skupino je namreč, da se izogne slab�emu obravnavanju
6 — At least in the context of certain arguments.
6 – Vsaj glede nekaterih trditev.
Whether any or all 9 of the three justifications may apply in a given situation involving a permanent establishment rather than a subsidiary is a different issue.
Drugo vpra�anje je, ali se lahko en ali vsi 9trije dejavniki utemeljitve uporabijo v danem položaju, kjer gre za stalno poslovno enoto in ne za odvisno družbo.
taken into account in the Member State in which they are established or in another Member State would significantly jeopardise a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, as the taxable basis would be increased in the first State and reduced in the second to the extent of the losses transferred’. 11 Similarly in the present case it would entail a breach of the symmetry between taxation and reliefs agreed by Germany and Luxembourg and reflected in the DTC if Germany were to grant relief for losses incurred by a Luxembourg permanent establishment of a German company where it had waived the right to tax profits made by such an establishment.
bi dali družbam možnost izbire, ali bodo upo�tevale svoje izgube v državi članici, v kateri imajo sedež, ali v drugi državi članici, to lahko znatno ogrozilo enakomerno porazdelitev pristojnosti obdavčitve med državami članicami, saj bi se davčna osnova v prvi državi povečala in v drugi zmanj�ala v vi�ini prenesenih izgub.“ 11 Podobno bi v tej zadevi povzročilo kr�itev simetrije med obdavčitvijo in olaj�avami, ki sta jih odobrila Nemčija in Luksemburg in se izražajo v KDO, če bi Nemčija odobrila olaj�ave za izgubo, ki je nastala luksembur�ki stalni poslovni enoti nem�ke družbe, ker se je odrekla pravici do obdavčevanja dobičkov, ki jih je imela ta poslovna enota.
With regard to the second justification, the Court in Marks & Spencer stated that Member States must be able to prevent the danger that losses might be used twice, that that danger exists if group relief is extended to the losses of nonresident subsidiaries and that it is avoided by a rule which precludes relief in respect of those losses. 12 12.
Glede drugega dejavnika utemeljitve je Sodi�če v sodbi Marks & Spencer ugotovilo, da morajo države članice preprečiti nevarnost, da bi se izgube obdavčile dvakrat, da ta nevarnost obstaja, če se olaj�ava za skupino raz�iri na izgube nerezidenčnih odvisnih družb, in da se temu izogne s pravilom, ki izključuje olaj�avo za te izgube. 12 12.
With regard to the first justification, it seems to me that the preservation of the allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States might mean that the economic activities of the permanent establishment in one Member State of a company established in another should be subject only to the tax rules of the first State in respect of both profits and losses.
Glede prvega dejavnika utemeljitve menim, da ohranitev porazdelitve pristojnosti obdavčitve med državami članicami lahko pomeni, da morajo za gospodarske dejavnosti stalne poslovne enote v eni državi članici družbe, ki ima sedež v drugi državi članici, veljati le davčni predpisi prve države tako glede dobičkov kot glede izgub.
10The Member State concerned in Marks & Spencer (the United Kingdom) did not assert taxing rights over foreign subsidiaries of resident companies. In the present case, the Member State concerned would, in the absence of the DTC, have the right to tax a crossborder permanent establishment but has waived that right by exempting profits of such an establishment from tax. The effect is the same. As the Court stated in Marks & Spencer, ‘to give companies the option to have their losses 14.
10Države članice iz zadeve Marks & Spencer (Združeno kraljestvo) niso zahtevale pravice obdavčevanja nerezidenčnih odvisnih družb družb rezidentk. V tej zadevi bi imele zadevne države članice, ker KDO ne obstaja, pravico, da stalne čezmejne poslovne enote obdavčijo, ampak so se odrekle tej pravici, tako da so dobičke teh poslovnih enot oprostile od davka. Učinek je enak. Kot je Sodi�če ugotovilo v sodbi Marks & Spencer, bi, „če 14.
Again, I do not see why that principle should not apply in a case such as the
Ne vidim razloga niti, zakaj se ne bi to načelo uporabilo tudi v tej zadevi. Očitno je,
8 — See point 16 of the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Marks & Spencer. 9 — The question whether the three justifications must be considered cumulatively is considered below.
Poiaresa Madura z dne 7. aprila 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837. 9 – Vpra�anje, ali se lahko vsi trije dejavniki utemeljitve presojajo skupaj, se obravnava spodaj.
LIDL BELGIUM present. There is clearly scope for the same loss to be used twice.
LIDL BELGIUM da se enaka izguba lahko uporabi dvakrat.
If anything that risk is greater in the context of losses made by a permanent establishment which remains in business than in the context (as in Marks & Spencer) of losses made by subsidiaries which had been sold to third parties or ceased trading. In the former context, if the losses could be used in the Member State where the company was resident there is a risk that they would be claimed again in the Member State of the permanent establishment once the permanent establishment became profitable, without the Member State where the company was resident being able to recoup the benefit obtained. Indeed it appears from the reply from the representative of Lidl to a question put by the Judge Rapporteur at the hearing in the present case that the loss which prompted the reference has now been set off against profits made in Luxembourg. 13As the Court stated in Marks & Spencer, Member States must be able to tackle the risk that losses will be used twice, and that risk is avoided by a rule which precludes relief in respect of those losses. 14 15. With regard to the third justification, relating to the risk of tax avoidance, the
Gotovo je to tveganje večje pri izgubah, ki jih je imela stalna poslovna enota, ki �e vedno posluje, kot v primeru (kot je v zadevi Marks & Spencer) izgub, ki so jih imele odvisne družbe, ki so bile prodane tretjim strankam ali so prenehale z dejavnostjo. V zadnjem primeru, če bi se izgube lahko uporabile v državah članicah, kjer je bila družba rezidentka, obstaja tveganje, da se bodo zahtevale spet v državi članici stalne poslovne enote, takrat ko bi imela stalna poslovna enota dobiček, in država članica, kjer je bila družba rezidentka, ne bo mogla nadomestiti pridobljenega dobička. Iz odgovora zastopnika družbe Lidl na vpra�anje, ki ga je zastavil sodnik poročevalec na obravnavi v tej zadevi, izhaja, da se je izguba, ki je spodbudila predlog v tem postopku, poravnala z dobičkom, pridobljenim v Luksemburgu. 13Kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če v sodbi Marks & Spencer, morajo biti države članice sposobne preprečiti nevarnost dvakratne uporabe izgube, tej nevarnosti pa se izognejo s pravilom, ki izključuje olaj�avo za te izgube. 14 15.
The issue of cash flow is explored further below, in the context of proportionality.
Denarni tok obravnavam spodaj, kjer govorim o sorazmernosti.
15 — Although it may be noted that tax avoidance by such ‘trafficking in losses’ does not appear to have been relevant on the facts in Marks & Spencer, which solely concerned vertical upwards transfer of losses from subsidiary to parent. 14 — Paragraphs 47 and 48.
15 – Čeprav lahko opozorim, da izogibanje davkom s tak�nim „trgovanjem z izgubami“ ni upo�tevno glede dejanskega stanja v zadevi Marks & Spencer, ki je obravnavala le vertikalni prenos izgub od odvisne družbe na matično. 14 – Točki 47 in 48.
Marks & Spencer to be cumulative, so that all three must be present. loss and, therefore, the potential for double deduction.
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-414/06 utemeljitve v sodbi Marks & Spencer ne dodaja ničesar k prvem in drugem razlogu. da morajo biti torej prisotni vsi trije dejavniki utemeljitve.
Admittedly the Court in Marks & Spencer referred to the ‘three justifications, taken together’, which supports that view. In N, however, the Court stated that ‘preserving the allocation of the power to tax between Member States is a legitimate objective’ without reference to other grounds. 16In AA, the Court accepted that legislation of a Member State which precludes a subsidiary resident in that Member State from deducting a financial transfer to its parent company from its taxable income unless that parent company is established in the same Member State could in principle be justified on the basis of two of the three Marks & Spencer grounds, namely the first and the third. 17And in Amurta the Court, having stated that the second and third Marks & Spencer justifications had not been pleaded, none the less went on to consider (and reject) an argument based on the need to safeguard the balanced allocation between the Member States of the power to tax. 18 It seems, therefore, that the three justifications do not necessarily all have to be applicable in a given case. In my view the legislation at issue in the present case could in principle be justified 16 — Case C-470/04 [2006] I-7409, paragraph 42.17 — Case C-231/05 [2007] ECR I-6373, paragraphs 51 to 60.18 — Case C-379/05 [2007] ECR I-9569, paragraphs 57 to 59.
Sodi�če se je v sodbi Marks & Spencer sklicevalo na „tri dejavnike utemeljitve, obravnavane skupaj“, ki podpira to stali�če. V sodbi N pa je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da je „ohranjanje dodelitve davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami legitimen cilj“, ne da bi se sklicevalo na druge razloge. 16 V sodbi AA je Sodi�če sprejelo, da bi se zakonodaja države članice, ki odvisni družbi rezidentki v tej državi članici prepreči, da bi od obdavčljivega dohodka odbila prispevek v korist matične družbe, razen če ima ta matična družba sedež v isti državi članici, načeloma lahko utemeljila z dvema od treh razlogov iz sodbe Marks & Spencer, zlasti s prvim in tretjim. 17In v sodbi Amurta je Sodi�če, ko je ugotovilo, da drugi in tretji dejavnik utemeljitve iz sodbe Marks & Spencer nista bila navedena, kljub temu presojalo (in zavrnilo) trditev glede potrebe po ohranitvi enakomerne porazdelitve pristojnosti obdavčitve med državami članicami. 18 Zato je očitno, da ni nujno, da se vsi trije dejavniki utemeljitve v tem primeru uporabijo. Po mojem mnenju bi se zakonodaja v tej zadevi lahko utemeljila s prvim in drugim razlogom iz sodbe Marks & Spencer, 16 – Sodba z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi N proti Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/kantoor Almelo, C-470/04, ZOdl., str. I-7409, točka 42.
I - 3610
Bundesfinanzhof v predložitveni odločbi opozarja, da ni prepričano, ali je Sodi�če določilo kumulativni pogoj vseh treh dejavnikov utemeljitve iz sodbe Marks & Spencer, I - 3610
LIDL BELGIUM by reference to the first and second Marks & Spencer grounds, namely the objectives of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes and of avoiding the danger that losses would be used twice. national rules altogether.
LIDL BELGIUM in sicer z namenom ohranjanja enakomerne porazdelitve pristojnosti obdavčitve in izogibanja nevarnosti, da se bi lahko izgube upo�tevale dvakrat.
19In such a situation, where the national legislation at issue is by definition severely restrictive, it is all the more important to consider carefully whether its aim could not be attained by less restrictive measures.
zakonodaja že po definiciji resno omejujoča, je �e zlasti pomembno, da se pozorno preuči, ali se njen namen lahko doseže z manj strogimi ukrepi.
In order for a restrictive measure to be justified it must in addition comply with the principle of proportionality, in that it must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objectives it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.
Da je omejevalni ukrep upravičen, je potrebno, da se upo�teva načelo sorazmernosti, in sicer mora biti primeren za zagotovitev uresničitve svojega zastavljenega cilja in ne sme preseči tega, kar je potrebno za dosego tega cilja.
In the present case, the contested measure precludes a company from offsetting against its profits losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State.
V tej zadevi izpodbijani ukrep družbi preprečuje, da bi poravnala izgube z dobički, ki jih je imela stalna poslovna enota v drugi državi članici.
The effect is that, in certain circumstances, a company will be taxed on more than its total net profits.
Posledica je, da je v določenih okoli�činah družba obdavčena bolj, kot je njen celotni neto dobiček.
That, to me, is a manifestly disproportionate means to the ends of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes and of avoiding the danger that losses may be used twice.
To je po mojem mnenju očitno nesorazmeren ukrep za ohranjanje enakomerne porazdelitve pristojnosti obdavčitve in izogibanja nevarnosti, da se izgube lahko uporabijo dvakrat.
In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that the contested measure is not appropriate for securing the attainment of the abovementioned objectives.
V tej zadevi ne morem reči, da izpodbijani ukrep ni primeren za zagotovitev uresničitve zgoraj navedenih ciljev.
In contrast, I cannot accept that it does not go beyond what is necessary to attain them, or, in other words, that it would not have been possible to achieve the same result by less stringent measures.
Nasprotno pa se ne morem strinjati s tem, da ne presega tega, kar je potrebno, da se te cilje doseže, ali, povedano drugače, da teh ciljev ne bi bilo mogoče doseči z manj strogimi ukrepi.
It is, moreover, clear that less restrictive measures are possible.
Poleg tega je jasno, da so mogoči tudi manj strogi ukrepi. Znano je, da je pred letom 1999 nem�ka ureditev 20izrecno določala, da družba lahko odbije izgubo, ki jo je imela stalna poslovna enota v drugi državi članici, za toliko, kolikor je presegla dobičke, ki jih je imela stalna poslovna enota in za katere
19 — Case C-334/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-2229, paragraph 28.
19 – Sodba z dne 4. marca 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Francoski republiki, C-334/02, Recueil, str. I-2229, točka 28.
To my mind, it thus manifestly better reflects the need for proportionality than the solution adopted by the Court in Marks & Spencer. 24.
Menim, da celo očitno bolje izraža potrebo po sorazmernosti kot re�itev, ki jo je sprejelo Sodi�če v sodbi Marks & Spencer. 24.
Such a rule, which allowed the deduction of losses while providing for the recapture of the loss relief in future profitable periods, would manifestly be a less restrictive means of avoiding the risk that losses might be used twice than a rule altogether excluding relief for such losses.
Tak�no pravilo, ki je dopu�čalo odbitek izgube z določanjem vračila olaj�ave izgube za prihodnja dobičkonosna obdobja, bi bilo očitno manj strog ukrep izogibanja nevarnosti, da bi se lahko izgube uporabile dvakrat, kot pravilo, ki izključuje olaj�anje za te izgube.
Although a deduction-and-recapture rule involves a loss of symmetry and hence does not wholly attain the objective of the balanced allocation of the power to tax, that asymmetry is merely temporary where the permanent establishment subsequently becomes profitable.
Čeprav pravilo o odbitku in vračilu zahteva izgubo simetrije in se od takrat ne doseže cilj enakomerne porazdelitve pristojnosti obdavčitve, je ta asimetrija zgolj začasna, če stalna poslovna enota pozneje postane bolj dobičkonosna.
Moreover provision could be made for automatic reincorporation of amounts previously deducted if reincorporation had still not occurred after, for example, five years, or if the permanent establishment ceased to exist in that form. 21
Poleg tega bi se lahko izdelala določba za samodejno reintegracijo zneskov, ki so bili prej odbiti, če do reintegracije ni pri�lo po, na primer, petih letih ali če je stalna poslovna nota prenehala obstajati v tej obliki. 21
The Court stated in Marks & Spencer itself that the restrictive measure (group loss relief legislation not extending to foreign subsidiaries) went beyond what was necessary to attain the essential part of the objectives pursued where the possibilities for having the losses taken into account in the subsidiary’s State of residence had been exhausted. 22It may therefore be assumed (although the judgment is extremely laconic on this issue) that the Court considered that in other circumstances the restrictive measure would have been proportionate. 25.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Marks & Spencer odločilo, da omejevalni ukrep (ureditev skupine olaj�av za izgube, ki ne velja za odvisne družbe nerezidentke), presega tisto, kar je nujno potrebno za dosego bistva zasledovanih ciljev v položaju, v katerem so možnosti, da se upo�tevajo izgube, ki obstajajo v državi članici rezidentstva, izčrpane. 22Tako lahko sklepam (čeprav je sodba glede tega izjemno skromna), da je Sodi�če odločilo, da bi bili v drugačnih okoli�činah omejevalni ukrepi sorazmerni. 25.
Such a deduction-and-recapture rule is unarguably less restrictive of the taxpayer’s fundamental right of establishment than an outright prohibition of deducting from the profits of a company losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State.
Tak�no pravilo o odbitku in vračilu nedvomno manj omejuje temeljno pravico do ustanavljanja, ki jo ima davkoplačevalec, kot to, da se popolnoma prepove odbitek izgube, ki jo je imela stalna poslovna enota v drugi
It must, however, be borne in mind that Marks & Spencer concerned losses made by subsidiaries which had been wound up or sold. There was accordingly no possibility 21 — As suggested in the Commission’s Proposal for a Council directive concerning arrangements for the taking into account by enterprises of the losses of their permanent establishments and subsidiaries situated in other Member States, COM(90) 595 final; 24 January 1991 (OJ 1991 C 53, p.
Vendar je treba upo�tevati, da se je zadeva Marks & Spencer nana�ala na izgube, ki so jih imele odvisne družbe, ki so prenehale obstajati ali so bile prodane. Tako ni 22 – Točka 55.
30): see Articles 5 to 8 and the Explanatory Memorandum.
Sodi�če določa dvojni preizkus: izčrpanje možnosti olaj�ave za izgube za tekoče in predhodna poslovna obdobja in „nezmožnost, da se izgube nerezidenčne odvisne družbe upo�tevajo v državi, kjer so rezidentke za prihodnja obdobja“.
22 — Paragraph 55. The Court lays down a double test: exhaustion of the possibility of loss relief for the current and previous accounting periods, and ‘no possibility for the foreign subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods’.
21 – Kot je bilo predlagano v predlogu Komisije za direktivo Sveta glede dogovora, da podjetja upo�tevajo izgube svojih stalnih poslovnih enot in odvisnih družb, ki se nahajajo v drugih državah članicah, COM(90) 595 konč.; z dne 24. januarja 1991 (UL C 53, 28.2.1991, str. 30): glej člene od 5 do 8 in obrazložitveni memorandum.
(at least in the former case) of recapturing in the future any loss relief given.
LIDL BELGIUM bilo možnosti (vsaj ne v zadnjem primeru) za vračilo dane olaj�ave za izgube.
23 In those circumstances it is perhaps understandable that the Court framed its answer as it did and failed to complete its analysis by examining in detail whether the cash-flow disadvantage of having to carry losses forward instead of using them immediately was not an overly restrictive way of attaining the objectives sought.
23V takih okoli�činah je morda razumljivo, da je Sodi�če oblikovalo odgovor tako, kot ga je, in ni dokončno presodilo in natančno preučilo, ali davčna neugodnost prenosa izgube v prihodnje obdobje, namesto da se uporabi takoj, ni bila preveč omejevalen način doseganja ciljev.
ation where it is available in an equivalent domestic situation is a restriction on the freedom of establishment.
to ugodnost podjetja v enakem položaju, z notranjim elementom, pomeni omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja.
24Indeed it made this very point forcefully in Marks & Spencer. There, it explained in terms that, by speeding up the relief of the losses of the loss-making companies by allowing them to be set off immediately against the profits of other group companies, the group loss relief at issue conferred a cash advantage on the group. The exclusion of such an advantage in respect of the losses incurred by a subsidiary established in another Member State was such as to hinder the exercise by that parent company of its freedom of establishment by deterring it from setting up subsidiaries in other Member States. Thus, it constituted a restriction on freedom of establishment. 25 28.
24 To je jasno poudarilo v sodbi Marks & Spencer. Pojasnilo je, da s pospe�enim poračunanjem izgub družb, ki poslujejo z izgubo, s takoj�njim odbitjem od dobičkov drugih družb v skupini, daje taka olaj�ava skupini likvidno prednost. Izključitev take ugodnosti v zvezi z izgubami, ki jih je imela odvisna družba, s sedežem v drugi državi članici, lahko ovira matično družbo pri izvajanju svobode ustanavljanja s tem, da jo odvrača od ustanavljanja odvisnih družb v drugih državah članicah. Pomeni torej omejitev svobode ustanavljanja. 25 28.
In cases such as the present, in contrast, which concern an ongoing permanent establishment, it cannot be argued that the possibility of carrying forward losses in the State of the permanent establishment is an acceptable substitute for granting relief in the State of residence of the company.
Nasprotno pa v primerih, kot je ta, ki se nana�a na delujočo stalno poslovno enoto, ne moremo oporekati, da je možnost za prena�anje izgub v državi stalne poslovne enote v prihodnje obdobje sprejemljiv substitut za podeljevanje olaj�ave v državi, kjer je družba rezidentka.
Even where a loss which is carried forward is subsequently offset, the company will in the mean time by definition have suffered a cash-flow disadvantage.
Tudi če se izguba, ki se prenese v prihodnje obdobje, pozneje poravna, bo družba medtem a priori utrpela davčno neugodnost.
That statement was made in the (analytically prior) context of whether the inability to deduct crossborder losses was a restriction contrary to Article 43.
Do te ugotovitve je pri�lo v (analitično predhodnem) okviru glede tega, ali je bila nezmožnost odbitka čezmejnih izgub omejitev, ki je v nasprotju s čle nom 43.
It seems anomalous that, having clearly accepted the potential significance of the denial of a cash-flow advantage and categorised it (correctly) as a prima facie infringement of Article 43 EC, the Court did not also examine expressly whether, where the restriction was prima
Izkaže se za nepravilno, da Sodi�če, ko je jasno potrdilo potencialni pomen zavrnitve davčne ugodnosti in jo opredelilo (pravilno) kot očitno kr�itev člena 43 ES, ni tudi izrecno presodilo, ali je bila, kadar je bila omejitev očitno upravičena, zavrnitev davčne
The Court is well aware of the significance of cash flow to undertakings.
Sodi�če se dobro zaveda pomena, ki ga ima denarni tok za podjetja.
It has repeatedly held that the exclusion of a cash-flow advantage in a crossborder situ-
Večkrat je ugotovilo, da izključitev davčne ugodnosti v položaju s čezmejnim elementom, ko imajo
23 — Advocate General Kokott took the view in her Opinion in AA, cited in footnote 17, that, essentially, the Court’s ruling on proportionality in Marks & Spencer derived from its exceptional facts (points 70 and 71). I agree. 25 — Paragraphs 32 to 34.
Kokott zavzela stali�če, da je odločanje Sodi�ča glede sorazmernosti v sodbi Marks & Spencer izhajalo iz posebnega dejanskega stanja v tej zadevi (točki 70 in 71). S tem se strinjam. 25 – Točke od 32 do 34.
30 facie justified, the denial of a cash-flow advantage which was an unavoidable consequence was disproportionate.
30 ugodnosti, ki je bila neizogibna posledica, nesorazmerna.