natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where the parent company did not decide to redistribute those profits to its own shareholders within five years, and in consequence is no longer able to use the fiscal advantage represented by those tax credits, can the taxation — additional to corporation tax — which results from the addback of 5% of the tax credits to its taxable income be regarded as permitted under Article 7(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990, in view of the small amount of such a tax and the fact that it was established directly in conjunction with payment of tax credits, introduced in order to mitigate the economic double taxation of dividends, or must it be regarded as contrary to the objectives of Article 4 of Directive 90/435?’
Če se matična družba ne odloči distribuirati tega dobička svojim delničarjem v petletnem roku in posledično ne more uveljavljati davčnih ugodnosti, ki jih predstavljajo ti davčni odbitki, ali se lahko �teje, da je z določbami člena 7(2) Direktive �t. 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 dovoljena dodatna obdavčitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki izhaja iz ponovnega v�tetja 5 % davčnih odbitkov v njen obdavčljivi dohodek, ker gre za majhen znesek takega davka in ker je bil ta uveden v neposredni povezavi s plačilom davčnih odbitkov, uvedenih za zmanj�anje ekonomske dvojne obdavčitve dividend, ali pa jo je treba �teti, kot da ne upo�teva ciljev iz člena 4 Direktive 90/435?“
Article 4(2) of the Directive
Člen 4(2) Direktive
Written observations have been submitted by Banque Fédérative, the French and German Governments and the Commission, all of whom, with the exception of the German Government, were present at the hearing.
Banque Fédérative, francoska in nem�ka vlada ter Komisija, ki so bile vse, razen Nemčije, prisotne na obravnavi, so predložile pisna stali�ča.
The referring court’s question assumes that, unless permitted by virtue of Article 7(2), the national legislation as interpreted by
Predložitveno sodi�če predideva, da bo nacionalna zakonodaja, razen če je dovoljena na podlagi člena 7(2), kot jo razlaga upravna
Banque Fédérative and the Commission submit that the national legislation as interpreted in the administrative circular is contrary to Article 4(2) of the Directive.
Banque Fédérative in Komisija navajata, da je nacionalna zakonodaja, kot jo razlaga upravna okrožnica, v nasprotju s členom 4(2) Direktive. Obe vladi menita drugače.
Article 4(2) of the Directive provides that, where a Member State fixes at a flat rate the management costs relating to the holding which may not be deducted from the taxable profits of the parent company, that fixed amount may not exceed 5% of ‘the profits distributed by the subsidiary’.
Člen 4(2) Direktive določa, da kadar država članica določi fiksni znesek za stro�ke upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež in ne smejo biti odbiti od obdavčljivega dobička matične družbe, ta fiksni znesek ne sme presegati 5 % „dobička, ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“.
The parties submitting observations are divided over the question whether ‘profits distributed by [a] subsidiary’ means, in circumstances where the dividend is subject to withholding tax, the net amount of the dividend actually received by the parent company (after deduction of withholding tax) or the gross amount of the dividend, namely the amount actually received increased by the amount of the tax credit made available by France to compensate for the withholding tax.
Stranke, ki so predložile stali�ča, si nasprotujejo glede tega, ali „dobič[e]k, ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“, pomeni v okoli�činah, v katerih je dividenda predmet pri viru odtegnjenega davka, neto znesek dividende, ki ga je matična družba dejansko prejela (po odbitku pri viru odtegnjenega davka), ali bruto znesek dividende, namreč znesek, ki se je dejansko prejel, povečan za znesek davčnega odbitka, ki ga je podelila Francija, da bi povrnila pri viru odtegnjeni davek.
‘The part of the 5% charge applying to the tax credit to which distribution of the dividend confers entitlement does not possess the characteristics of a withholding tax on distributed profits, in principle prohibited by Article 5(1) of the Directive, because it is not imposed on the profits distributed by the subsidiary.
„Del 5-odstotne bremenitve, ki se uporablja za davčni odbitek, ki se ga lahko koristi zaradi razdelitve dividend, nima značilnosti pri viru odtegnjenega davka na distribuiran dobiček, ki je načelno prepovedan s členom 5(1) Direktive, ker ni naložen na dobiček, ki ga distribuira odvisna družba.
The tax credit is a fiscal instrument designed to avoid double taxation, in economic terms, first in the hands of the subsidiary and then in the hands of the parent company in receipt of the dividends, of the profits distributed as dividends.
Davčni odbitek je davčno sredstvo, ki je oblikovano, da bi se izognilo dvojni obdavčitvi, v ekonomskem smislu, prvič v rokah odvisne družbe, kasneje pa v rokah matične družbe, ki prejme dividende, dobička, ki je ditribuiran v obliki dividend.
Thus it does not constitute income from shares.’ 18
Tako ni dohodek, ki je pridobljen iz delnic.“ 18
It must be borne in mind that the tax credit at issue in Océ van der Grinten was for
Treba se je zavedati, da je bil znesek zadevnega davčnega odbitka v zadevi Océ
It was explicitly argued in that case that the tax credit should be regarded as forming
Conseil d’État in vse stranke, ki so predložile stali�ča, so se ob�irno sklicevale na zadevo Océ van der Grinten 16, v kateri je bilo Sodi�če med drugim vpra�ano, ali sta 5-odstotna bremenitev, ki je bila naložena skupnemu znesku dividend, ki ga je odvisna družba s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu plačala svoji matični družbi s sedežem na Nizozemskem, in davčni odbitek, ki se ga je lahko koristilo zaradi te distribucije, bila pri viru odtegnjeni davek, ki je v nasprotju s členom 5(1) Direktive.
17 — See paragraphs 38 and 42.18 — Paragraphs 55 and 56.
16 – Sodba z dne 25. septembra 2003 v zadevi Océ van der Grinten (C-58/01, Recueil, str. I-9809).
16 — Case C-58/01 [2003] ECR I-9809.
17 – Glej točki 38 in 42.18 – Točki 55 in 56.
As the Court stated in Athinaiki Zythopoiia, 22in the case of a withholding tax ‘the company distributing dividends must withhold part of the dividends, which it pays to the tax authorities’.
19V trenutni zadevi se želi z zadevnim davčnim odbitkom delničarju povrniti pri viru odtegnjeni davek od dividend in tako vzpostaviti zmanj�anje pravnega dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Moreover that interpretation seems to me to be confirmed by Article 5 of the Directive which authorises Germany, Greece and Portugal to levy a withholding tax on ‘profits distributed’.
20 Skladno s tem se ne strinjam s Komisijo, katere zelo skopa stali�ča 21navajajo le, da iz zadeve Océ van der Grinten izhaja, da se davčni odbitek ne more �teti za distribuiran dobiček.
the amount of advance corporation tax paid by the company distributing the dividend in respect of that dividend.
družbo in �el neposredno matični družbi. Ne vem, zakaj bi na to analizo vplivalo dejstvo, da država članica odvisne družbe zahteva od nje, naj od tega plačila odtegne znesek, ki predstavlja davek, ki ga mora plačati matična družba, in zanj odgovarja neposredno davčnim organom te države članice.
It was hence (as explained by the Court) designed to relieve economic double taxation.
Kot je navedlo Sodi�če v zadevi Athinaïki Zythopoiia, 22 mora v primeru „pri viru odtegnjenega davka“ družba, ki razdeljuje dividende, odtegniti pri viru del dividend, ki ga nakaže davčnim organom.
19In the present case, the tax credit at issue seeks to compensate the shareholder for withholding tax on the dividend, and is hence designed to relieve juridical double taxation.
Nadalje se zdi, da je taka razlaga v skladu s členom 5 Direktive, ki dopu�ča Nemčiji, Grčiji in Portugalski, da odmerijo pri viru odtegnjeni davek na „distribuiran dobiček“.
On a literal interpretation, I cannot see why ‘profits distributed by [a] subsidiary’ should not equate to the amount of the dividend actually received increased by the amount of the tax credit made available by France to compensate for the tax deducted at source.
Ob dobesedni razlagi ne vidim, čemu „dobič[e]k, ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“, ne bi mogel biti enak kot znesek od dejansko prejetih dividend, povečan za znesek davčnega odbitka, ki ga je podelila Francija, da bi povrnila pri viru odtegnjeni davek.
From the perspective of the subsidiary, if it declares a dividend of, say, EUR 100, it distributes profits of EUR 100.
Z gledi�ča odvisne družbe, če napove dividendo, recimo 100 EUR, razdeli dobiček v vi�ini 100 EUR.
If there were no withholding tax, that amount would leave the subsidiary and go directly to the parent company.
Če ne bi bilo pri viru odtegnjenega davka, bi ta znesek zapustil odvisno
To my mind, and as the French Government has argued, the French legislation simply amounts to calculating the 5% addback by reference to the total amount of the dividend declared; the reference to the tax credit is simply a means of ensuring that this figure is arrived at.
Kolikor mi je znano in kot je trdila francoska vlada, francoska zakonodaja le izračuna 5-odstotno ponovno v�tetje glede na celotni znesek napovedanih dividend; sklicevanje na davčni odbitek je le sredstvo, da se zagotovi izračun tega zneska.
I do not therefore accept the argument advanced by Banque Fédérative that, since a tax credit provided for by a double tax convention in order to compensate for the reduction in the amount of the dividend due to withholding tax takes the
Tako se ne strinjam s trditvijo Banque Fédérative, da ker je davčni odbitek, ki je podeljen s sporazumom o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju, da bi povrnil zmanj�ani znesek dividende zaradi pri viru odtegnjenega davka, v obliki odbitka s strani države, ne more imeti značaja dividende ali
19 — Taxation of the same income twice, in the hands of two different taxpayers: see point 3 above.
19 – Dvakratna obdavčitev istega dohodka, v rokah dveh različnih davčnih zavezancev: glej zgoraj navedeno točko 3.
20 — Taxation of the same income twice, in the hands of the same taxpayer: see point 8 above.
20 – Dvakratna obdavčitev istega dohodka, v rokah istega davčnega zavezanca: glej zgoraj navedeno točko 8.
21 — The Commission devotes four short paragraphs to whether the national legislation as interpreted by the administrative circular is compatible with Article 4(2) of the Directive.
21 – Komisija je namenila �tiri kratke odstavke temu, ali je nacionalna zakonodaja, kot jo razlaga upravna okrožnica, v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive.
22 — Case C-294/99 [2001] ECR I-6797, paragraph 7.
22 – Sodba z dne 4. oktobra 2001 (C-294/99, Recueil, str.
France to give full credit for withholding taxes imposed during the transitional period when it has opted for the exemption rather than the credit method would furthermore be tantamount to requiring it to provide for both methods whereas the Directive requires Member States to opt for one or the other.
Da bi se od Francije zahteval popolen odbitek za pri viru odtegnjeni davek, ki je naložen med prehodnim obdobjem, medtem ko je izbrala metodo oprostitve namesto metode odbitka, bi bilo nadalje enako, kot če bi od nje zahtevali, naj zagotovi obe metodi, medtem ko Direktiva od držav članic zahteva, naj izberejo eno ali drugo.
form of a credit by the State, it cannot be in the nature of a dividend or, therefore, of a distributed profit within the meaning of the Directive.
torej distribuiranega dobička v smislu Direktive.
Moreover I note that, in the context of an argument which I will not address since it explicitly seeks to put in issue the interpretation of national law on which the Conseil d’État has based its reference to this Court, Banque Fédérative submits that, although legally payable by the company making the distribution, withholding tax is in reality borne by the recipients of the dividend.
Nadalje, ugotavljam, da v okviru trditve, o kateri ne bom razpravljala, saj izrecno želi, da se postavi pod vpra�aj razlago nacionalnega prava, na podlagi katerega je Conseil d’État predložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje Sodi�ču, Banque Fédérative navaja, da čeprav zakonito plačljiv s strani družbe, ki razdeljuje dividende, pri viru odtegnjeni davek dejansko bremeni prejemnike dividend.
That submission appears to me to support my proposed interpretation.
To stali�če, se mi zdi, potrjuje razlago, ki jo predlagam.
I am accordingly of the view that, where a Member State has opted under Article 4(2) of the Directive to provide that any charges relating to a parent company’s holding in a subsidiary of another Member State and any losses resulting from the distribution of the profits of the subsidiary may not be deducted from the taxable profits of the parent company, it is not contrary to that provision for the management costs relating to the holding to be fixed as 5% of the total revenue from the holdings, including tax credits compensating for withholding tax levied on the dividend in accordance with Article 5(2), (3) or (4) of the Directive.
Glede na to menim, da kadar je država članica v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive izbrala, da se vsi stro�ki, ki se nana�ajo na delež matične družbe v odvisni družbi iz druge države članice, in vse izgube, ki izhajajo iz distribucije dobička odvisne družbe, ne smejo odbiti od obdavčljivega dobička matične družbe, ni v nasprotju s to določbo, da so stro�ki upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na ta delež, fiksni v vi�ini 5 % od celotnega dohodka iz deleža, vključno z davčnimi odbitki, ki povrnejo pri viru odtegnjeni davek, ki je bil v skladu s členom 5(2), (3) ali (4) Direktive odmerjen od dividend.
I also agree with the German Government that the objective of the Directive does not undermine that analysis.
Prav tako se strinjam z nem�ko vlado, da cilj direktive ni v nasprotju s to analizo.
In order to ensure fiscal neutrality, Article 5(1) of the Directive prohibits Member States from imposing withholding tax on profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company.
Da bi zagotovil davčno nevtralnost, člen 5(1) Direktive preprečuje državam članicam, da bi naložile pri viru odtegnjeni davek na dobiček, ki ga odvisna družba distribuira matični družbi.
In the present case, the lack of fiscal neutrality is due to the withholding tax in the State of the subsidiary.
Pomanjkanje davčne nevtralnosti v tej zadevi je posledica pri viru odtegnjenega davka v državi odvisne družbe.
Total fiscal neutrality may not be achievable for so long as the transitional provisions can be invoked.
Popolna davčna nevtralnost ne bo dosežena, dokler se je mogoče sklicevati na prehodne določbe.
That does not mean that an interpretation which results in imperfect or incomplete fiscal neutrality is for that reason incorrect.
To ne pomeni, da razlaga, zaradi katere davčna nevtralnost ni perfektna ali popolna, zato ni pravilna.
On that basis it is unnecessary to consider whether the legislation may be justified by reference to other provisions
Na podlagi tega ni treba presoditi, ali se zakonodaja lahko upraviči na podlagi ostalih
I shall none the less briefly consider the relevance of those provisions.
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-27/07 se nana�ajo na plačilo odbitkov za že plačane davke prejemnikom dividend“.
Article 7(2) of the Directive
Člen 7(2) Direktive
Banque Fédérative and the Commission consider that the derogation in Article 7(2) of the Directive is inapplicable.
Banque Fédérative in Komisija menita, da odstopanja iz člena 7(2) Direktive ni mogoče uporabiti.
The French Government takes the contrary view in its written observations, although at the hearing it argued that the legislation was compatible with Article 4(2) so that Article 7(2) was not relevant.
Francoska vlada v pisnih stali�čih meni drugače, čeprav je na obravnavi trdila, da je zakonodaja v skladu s členom 4(2), tako da člen 7(2) ni upo�teven. Nem�ka vlada ni predložila stali�č glede člena 7(2).
If the national legislation as interpreted by the administrative circular is contrary to Article 4(2) of the Directive, the national court asks whether it might be permitted by virtue of Article 7(2) thereof on the basis that, since the only effect of the 5% addback is partially to reduce the tax credit attributed to the parent company on the occasion of the distribution of dividends, it may be regarded as belonging to a body of provisions relating to the payment of tax credits to beneficiaries of dividends and aiming, by the same token, at the mitigation of double taxation.
Če je nacionalna zakonodaja, kot jo razlaga upravna okrožnica, v nasprotju s členom 4(2) Direktive, nacionalno sodi�če spra�uje, ali bi lahko bila dopu�čena glede na člen 7(2) Direktive, na podlagi tega, da se, ker je edina posledica 5-odstotnega ponovnega v�tetja, da delno zmanj�a davčni odbitek, ki je podeljen matični družbi ob razdelitvi dividend, za ta člen lahko pojmuje, da sodi v skupino določb, ki se nana�ajo na plačilo davčnih odbitkov upravičencem do dividend in s katerimi se želi na enak način doseči zmanj�anje dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Article 7(2) states that the Directive ‘shall not affect the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation
Člen 7(2) določa, da ta Direktiva „ne vpliva na uporabo notranjih ali na sporazumih temelječih določb, ki so namenjene odpravi ali zmanj�anju ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend, zlasti določb, ki
It is clear to my mind that Article 7(2) can have no relevance to the present case, since the national legislation at issue is not designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation.
Ne zdi se mi sporno, da člen 7(2) v tej zadevi ni upo�teven, saj zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja ni bila sprejeta, da bi odpravila ali zmanj�ala ekonomsko dvojno obdavčevanje.
Although the question referred mentions the fact that the additional taxation which results from the 5% addback ‘was established directly in conjunction with payment of tax credits, introduced in order to mitigate the economic double taxation of dividends’, it is clear from the order for reference as a whole that the tax credits (crédits d’impôt étranger) in question seek to mitigate the juridical double taxation of the same divi-
Čeprav predloženo vpra�anje omenja dejstvo, da je bila dodatna obdavčitev, ki je posledica 5-odstotnega ponovnega v�tetja, „uvedena v neposredni povezavi s plačilom davčnih odbitkov, uvedenih za zmanj�anje ekonomske dvojne obdavčitve dividend“, je iz celotnega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje jasno, da želijo zadevni davčni odbitki (crédits d’impôt étranger) zmanj�ati pravno dvojno
BANQUE FÉDÉRATIVE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL dend in the hands of the parent company in both the Member State of the subsidiary and the Member State of the parent company.
BANQUE FÉDÉRATIVE DU CRÉDIT MUTUEL tako preprečiti nevarnost goljufije, povezane z vračunom fiktivnih davčnih odbitkov.
to verify whether the credits were genuine and hence to prevent the risk of fraud linked to the setting-off of fictive tax credits.
obdavčitev iste dividende v rokah matične družbe v državi članici odvisne družbe in v državi članici matične družbe.
Article 1(2) of the Directive
Člen 1(2) Direktive
I cannot accept that argument.
Te trditve ne morem sprejeti.
As the Court stated in Leur-Bloem, a general presumption of tax evasion or tax fraud cannot justify a fiscal measure which compromises the objectives of a directive.
Kot je Sodi�če ugotovilo v zadevi Leur-Bloem splo�na domneva izogibanja davka ali davčne goljufije ne more upravičiti davčnega ukrepa, ki ogroža cilje Direktive.
23It may be noted that that case concerned a provision in national legislation which sought to prevent, pursuant to Article 11 of the Merger Directive, 24 the tax advantages for which that directive provided from being granted for operations having as their principal objective tax evasion or tax avoidance.
23 Treba je povedati, da je v tej zadevi �lo za nacionalno zakonodajo, ki je v skladu s členom 11 Direktive o združitvah 24želela preprečiti davčne ugodnosti, ki jih je ta direktiva podeljevala za transakcije, katerih glavni cilj je bilo preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davka.
The same principle should clearly apply where, as here, a directive permits a Member State to derogate from its provisions on the grounds of fraud or abuse.
Isto načelo bi bilo treba uporabiti kadar Direktiva, kot sedaj, dovoljuje državi članici odstopanja od njenih določb zaradi goljufije in zlorab.
If the French authorities wish to verify whether given tax credits are genuine, they may invoke the Mutual Assistance Directive 25in order to obtain from the competent authorities of another Member State all the information which is necessary to allow them to effect a correct assessment of corporation tax.
Če francoski organi oblasti želijo preveriti, ali so davčni odbitki pravilni, se lahko sklicujejo na Direktivo o medsebojni pomoči 25, da bi od pristojnih organov druge države članice dobili vse primerne informacije, ki bi jim omogočale pravilno ugotovitev davka od dohodka pravnih oseb.
23 — Case C-28/95 [1997] ECR I-4161, paragraph 44.
23 – Sodba z dne 17. julija 1997 (C-28/95, Recueil, str.
24 — Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1).
24 – Direktiva Sveta 90/434/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve za združitve, delitve, prenose sredstev in zamenjave kapitalskih deležev družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str. 1).
25 — Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15).
25 – Direktiva Sveta 77/799/EGS z dne 19. decembra 1977 o medsebojni pomoči pristojnih organov držav članic na področju neposredne obdavčitve (UL L 336, str. 15).
The French Government has submitted that the Court should consider, in addition to Articles 4(2) and 7(2) of the Directive, specifically mentioned by the referring court, Article 1(2), which states that the Directive is not to preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of fraud or abuse.
Francoska vlada je navedla, da bi Sodi�če poleg členov 4(2) in 7(2) Direktive, ki jih je posebej omenilo predložitveno sodi�če, moralo upo�tevati člen 1(2), ki določa, da Direktiva ne izključuje uporabe notranjih ali na sporazumih temelječih določb, ki so potrebne za preprečevanje goljufij ali zlorab.
The French Government notes that the national provision which gave rise to the main proceedings provides that a parent company can set off tax credits obtained from subsidiaries resident in another Member State against the précompte mobilier payable in respect of dividends redistributed to its shareholders only where the distribution is made within five years.
Francoska vlada navaja, da nacionalne določbe, ki so podlaga za spor o glavni stvari, določajo, da matična družba lahko vračuna odbitke, ki jih je pridobila od odvisnih družb s sedežem v drugi državi članici v davčnem odbitku précompte mobilier, ki ga je treba plačati od dividend, ki jih razdeli svojim delničarjem, le kadar jih razdeli v petletnem roku.
That limitation to five years reflects a concern by the French Government to combat fraud.
Petletna omejitev kaže skrb francoske vlade za boj proti goljufijam.
The risk of fraud and the difficulty of fiscal supervision would be exacerbated if undertakings could set off tax credits linked to dividends received 10 or 20 years earlier.
Nevarnost goljufij in težavnost davčnega nadzora bi bili povečani, če bi podjetja lahko vračunala davčne odbitke, ki so povezani z 10 ali 20 let prej prejetimi dividendami.
The administration would not be able
Davčna uprava ne bi mogla preveriti, ali so bili odbitki pravilni, in
For the reasons given above I conclude that the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État, France, should be answered as follows:
Glede na zgoraj navedene razloge predlagam, naj se na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je predložilo Conseil d’État, odgovori: