natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission stresses that under Article 9 any taxable person may eliminate any risk of verification or reassessment in respect of a series of tax years, in exchange for a payment quite unrelated to the amount of VAT normally due at the rate of 20%.
Komisija poudarja, da se lahko v skladu s členom 9 davčni zavezanec izogne vsakr�nemu tveganju preverjanja ali ponovne odmere za zaporedna davčna leta v zameno za plačilo, ki je dokaj nepovezano z zneskom DDV, ki bi bil običajno dolgovan po stopnji 20 %.
The amnesty under Article 8 also protects the taxable person from further verification or reassessment, albeit in exchange for a higher payment.
Amnestija iz člena 8 tudi �čiti davčnega zavezanca pred nadaljnjim preverjanjem in ponovno odmero, vendar v zameno za vi�je plačilo.
Such a wholesale renunciation by the tax authorities of their powers of verification seriously distorts, in the Commission’s view, the neutrality of the common VAT system.
Tako �iroka odpoved davčnih organov glede njihovih pooblastil do preverjanja po mnenju Komisije resno kr�i nevtralnost skupnega sistema DDV.
Different taxable persons are subjected to very different treatment in respect of comparable transactions, which in turn undermines fair competition.
Različni davčni zavezanci so različno obravnavani glede primerljivih transakcij, kar nadalje spodkopava po�teno konkurenco.
24 — The Commission cites the case of a taxable person having failed to submit any declaration in a given tax year, in which he should have accounted for EUR 600 000.
24 – Komisija navaja primer davčnega zavezanca, ki za zadevno davčno leto ni predložil niti enega obračuna, v katerem pa bi moral obračunati 600.000 EUR.
Under the Article 9 procedure, the maximum payable in order to benefit from complete immunity is EUR 3 000 — a definitive loss for the tax authorities of EUR 597 000.
V skladu s postopkom iz člena 9 je maksimum, ki ga je treba plačati za to, da bi lahko bil upravičen do popolne imunitete, 3000 EUR– končna izguba davčnih organov tako zna�a 597.000 EUR.
I would add that the proportion lost might be even more exorbitant, since the provision explicitly envisages payments in excess of EUR 11 600 000.
Dodala bi, da je izguba lahko �e večja, saj določba predvideva plačila, ki so večja od 11.600.000 EUR.
Where a taxable person has a choice between the two procedures (and wishes to make use of one or other of them), it is reasonable to assume that he will opt for that which costs him less.
Kadar lahko davčni zavezanec izbira med dvema postopkoma (in želi uporabiti enega ali drugega), bi bilo razumljivo pričakovati, da se bo odločil za tistega, ki bo zanj cenej�i.
Where the degree of underdeclaration or non-declaration has been limited (and thus perhaps more likely to be due to honest error), the Article 8
Kjer je bila stopnja nižjega obračuna ali neobračuna omejena (in tako bolj verjetno posledica po�tene napake), se zdi člen 8 ugodnej�i, saj
COMMISSION v ITALY
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI treba preučiti te vidike, preden se lahko poda končni predlog.
Limitations on the amnesty provisions
Omejitve določb o amnestiji
The Commission describes the contested amnesty as a general and indiscriminate renunciation of the right of verification and reassessment, whereas the Italian Government draws attention to a number of limitations on the availability of the amnesty provisions.
Komisija opisuje sporno amnestijo kot splo�no in nediskriminatorno odpoved pravici do preverjanja in ponovne odmere, medtem ko italijanska vlada poudarja �tevilne omejitve področja uporabe določb o amnestiji.
Those limitations are, in its view, significant and mean that the amnesty cannot be described as general or indiscriminate.
Te omejitve so po njenem mnenju pomembne in prikazujejo, da se amnestija ne more opisati kot splo�na in nediskriminatorna.
Again, I can only agree with the Commission that a legislative arrangement under which honest and assiduous traders account for VAT in full whereas fraudulent or negligent traders can escape any further scrutiny in exchange for a payment of at most half, and possibly very much less, of the VAT actually due is not in compliance with the obligations imposed on Member States by, in particular, Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive.
Spet se lahko zgolj strinjam s Komisijo, da zakonodajni ukrepi, v skladu s katerimi morajo po�teni in pazljivi trgovci plačati DDV v celoti, medtem ko se goljufivi ali malomarni trgovci lahko izognejo nadaljnjemu pregonu v zameno za plačilo največ polovice, in mogoče �e precej manj, dejansko dolgovanega DDV, niso v skladu z obveznostmi, ki so naložene državam članicam zlasti v členih 2 in 22 Šeste direktive.
More specifically, the arrangements under Article 9 of the Italian Finance Law for 2003 completely disregard the detailed provisions of Article 22 of the Sixth Directive cited by the Commission 25in that they do not involve a declaration of transactions actually effected and in that the sums payable are not linked in any way to the tax which should have been accounted for on those transactions.
Natančneje, ukrepi iz člena 9 italijanskega zakona o financah za leto 2003 popolnoma zanemarjajo podrobne določbe člena 22 Šeste direktive, ki jih navaja Komisija, 25s tem da ne vključujejo obračuna dejansko opravljenih transakcij in s tem da zneski, ki jih je treba plačati, niso v ničemer povezani z davkom, ki bi moral biti obračunan za te transakcije.
And, as the Commission rightly points out, the amnesty is quite indiscriminate in that it makes no distinction between occasional and regular underdec -laration, between small sums and large, or between negligence and fraud.
Kot Komisija pravilno izpostavlja, je amnestija dokaj nediskriminatorna v tem, da ne dela razlike med občasnim in rednim nižjim obračunavanjem, med nizkimi in visokimi zneski ali med malomarnostjo in goljufijo.
First the amnesty is not available to taxable persons who did not initially submit any VAT returns at all for any of the tax years concerned.
Prvič, amnestija ni na voljo davčnim zavezancem, ki prvotno sploh niso predložili obračunov DDV za niti eno od zadevnih davčnih let.
26That situation, the Commission replies, is by its nature purely marginal.
26 Ta položaj, odgovarja Komisija, je po svojemu značaju popolnoma obroben.
However, the main thrust of Italy’s defence is that the amnesty is of limited availability and is an effective measure, falling within the latitude available to the Member States, for ensuring recovery of sums which would otherwise be lost to the tax authorities.
Vendar je glavni argument v obrambi Italije, da je veljavnost amnestije omejena in da je amnestija učinkovit ukrep, ki spada v svobodo, dano državam članicam, da bi zagotovile izterjavo zneskov, ki bi drugače bili za davčne organe izgubljeni.
One may indeed hope that such a situation is uncommon, and Italy has not taken issue with its description as ‘marginal’.
Dejansko se lahko le upa, da bi bil tak položaj redek in Italija se ni spu�čala v razpravo glede tega, da se ga je opisalo kot „obrobnega“.
In practice, businesses of any appreciable size may well, even if they wish to defraud the tax authorities, submit sufficiently plaus -ible returns to avoid attracting attention.
V praksi bodo podjetja določene velikosti predložila dokaj verjetne obračune, četudi bi želela ogoljufati davčne organe, zato da ne bi pritegnila pozornosti.
By contrast, however, a complete absence of declaration may be more common among smaller operators who hope to escape detection in any event, or who feel that evasion is justified by some sort of moral de minimis
Po drugi strani je popoln neobstoj obračuna bolj pogost pri majhnih gospodarskih subjektih, ki se želijo v vsakem primeru
25 — See points 8 to 10 above.
25 – Glej točke od 8 do 10 zgoraj.
26 — Articles 8(4) and 9(14)(c).
26 – Člena 8(4) in 9(14)(c).
In addition, it is probable that many illegal activities will not be declared at all for VAT purposes, even where in principle they are subject to the tax. 28
27 Nadalje je verjetno, da veliko nezakonitih dejavnosti ne bo obračunalo DDV, četudi so načeloma zavezane davku. 28
On balance, therefore, it seems to me unlikely that the exclusion of taxable persons who have failed to submit any return at all for any of the tax years concerned will have a significant effect on the numbers benefiting or seeking to benefit from the amnesty.
Glede na to se mi zdi bolj malo verjetno, da bo izključitev davčnih zavezancev, ki niso predložili niti enega obračuna za katerokoli od zadevnih davčnih let, imela pomemben učinek na �tevilo tistih, ki so upravičeni ali želijo biti upravičeni do te amnestije.
Second, the Italian Government argues that the amnesty is not available where irregularities have already been brought to light. 30
Drugič, italijanska vlada trdi, da amnestija ni možna, kadar so se odkrile nepravilnosti. 30Komisija odgovarja, da ta
I am thus not convinced that the exclusion is marginal in overall terms.
Tako nisem prepričana, da je izključitev na splo�no obrobna.
As regards the visible economy, it is no doubt marginal, simply because anyone visibly carrying on taxable business will feel the need to declare at least enough of that business to ward off uncomfortable scrutiny and, having done so, will not be excluded from the amnesty.
Kar zadeva vidno ekonomijo, je seveda obrobna preprosto zato, ker bo vsak, ki vidno opravlja obdavčljivo dejavnost, čutil potrebo, da obračuna vsaj toliko prometa, da odvrne neprijetni podrobni nadzor, in da s tem, da je to opravil, ne bo izključen od amnestije.
But such reasoning does not hold true for the invisible, or underground, economy, which has been estimated at over 26% of GDP in Italy. 29
29 izključitev ni popolna – v nekaterih primerih se lahko uporabijo drugi postopki poravnave iz členov 15 in 16 zakona �t.
The Commission counters that the exclusion is not complete — in some cases another settlement procedure under Articles 15 and 16 of Law No 289/2002 may be used in order to terminate reassessment proceedings and reopen the possibility of recourse to the amnesty — but the Italian Government rejoins that the arrangement in question concerns only those for whom such proceedings were still open to challenge.
289/2002, da bi se končal postopek ponovne odmere in ponovno odprla možnost dostopa do amnestije – vendar italijanska vlada odgovarja, da se zadevni argument nana�a le na tiste, za katere taki postopki �e niso pravnomočni.
On the other hand, a (theoretically) taxable person who aspires to escape altogether the notice of the tax authorities is perhaps less likely to seek the protection of an amnesty than one who is already known to those authorities but has hidden something from them.
Po drugi strani bo (teoretični) davčni zavezanec, ki se želi popolnoma izogniti temu, da bi ga davčni organi opazili, mogoče manj verjetno iskal za�čito amnestije, kot pa nekdo, ki je že znan tem organom, vendar jim je nekaj zatajil.
He is also less likely to be audited by them, particularly if their resources are limited, as is argued by the Italian Government.
Ta bo tudi manj verjetno predmet davčne in�pekcije, predvsem če so njihova sredstva omejena, kot trdi italijanska vlada.
27 — In contrast with the situation in some other Member States, Italy has no VAT registration threshold, so that even the smallest businesses are required to account for tax.
27 – V nasprotju z nekaterimi drugimi državami članicami Italija nima spodnjega praga za registracijo DDV, tako da so tudi najmanj�a podjetja dolžna obračunati davek.
It appears from the text of Articles 15 and 16 provided by Italy in its rejoinder that reassessment proceedings which have not yet reached the stage of a definitive order or ruling may be terminated by the payment of a sum of at least EUR 150 and up to 50% of the amount of tax claimed, and from Art -icles 8(10) and 9(14) that, once such payment has been made within the relevant time-limit, the taxable person may have recourse to the amnesty under either Article 8 or Article 9.
Iz besedila členov 15 in 16, ki ga je posredovala Italija v svoji dupliki, izhaja, da se postopek ponovne odmere, ki se �e ni končal z dokončnim sklepom ali odločitvijo, lahko konča s plačilom zneska vsaj 150 EUR do največ 50 % zneska zahtevanega davka, iz členov 8(10) in 9(14) pa izhaja, da ima, ko je to plačilo opravljeno v upo�tevnem časovnem obdobju, davčni zavezanec pravico do amnestije v skladu s členom 8 ali členom 9.
28 — See, for example, Joined Cases C-439/04 and C-440/04 Kittel and Recolta Recycling [2006] ECR I-6161, paragraph 50, and the caselaw cited there.
28 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 6. julija 2006 v združenih zadevah Kittel in Recolta Recycling, C-439/04 in C-440/04, ZOdl., str. I-6161, točka 50, in tam navedena sodna praksa.
30 — Articles 8(10) and 9(14).
30 – Člena 8(10) in 9(14).
COMMISSION v ITALY and wholly dependent on the accuracy of the returns made — which is itself excluded from verification by the amnesty procedure.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI v celoti odvisno od pravilnosti opravljenih obračunov – ki sama ni predmet preverjanja s postopkom amnestije.
The second type of verification concerns claims for reimbursement of VAT, that is to say, situations where input tax exceeds output tax so that the difference between the two is in favour of the taxable person rather than the tax authorities.
Druga vrsta preverjanja se nana�a na zahtevke za vračilo DDV, kar pomeni, položaje, kjer vstopni davek presega izstopni davek, tako da je razlika med njima v korist davčnega zavezanca in ne davčnih organov.
The Italian Government asserts that in such cases, regardless of the amnesty, the verification can extend to the supplier who issued the invoices showing the input VAT and who must in any event account for the tax by virtue of having issued the invoice. 32
Italijanska vlada meni, da se v takih primerih, ne glede na amnestijo, preverjanje lahko raz�iri na dobavitelja, ki je izdal račune, ki prikazujejo vstopni davek in ki mora v vsakem primeru obračunati davek, ker je izdal račun. 32
Consequently, the exclusion invoked by the Italian Government is of limited scope.
Posledično je izključitev, na katero se sklicuje italijanska vlada, omejenega obsega.
It is only natural that a tax amnesty seeking to elicit voluntary contributions in lieu of tax which would normally have been due, but which is perceived as difficult to collect by other means, should not extend to reopening, to the benefit of the taxable person, proced -ures which have already been concluded in the tax authorities’ favour.
Popolnoma normalno je, da se davčna amnestija, ki želi spodbuditi prostovoljna plačila namesto davka, ki bi ga bilo treba običajno plačati, vendar ki se ga �teje kot težko izterljivega z drugimi sredstvi, ne bi smela v korist davčnega zavezanca raz�iriti v ponoven začetek postopkov, ki so že bili končani v dobro davčnih organov.
However, taxable persons subject to a pending procedure may benefit from the amnesty, by paying a portion of the sum in issue in that procedure in addition to the sum required under the amnesty procedure.
Vendar so lahko davčni zavezanci, ki so �e v postopku, upravičeni do amnestije, tako da plačajo del zneska, ki je sporen v tistem postopku, poleg zneska, ki se zahteva v postopku amnestije.
The amnesty will still be attract- ive for them if it means they can gain immunity by paying a lesser amount overall than that which they would have been likely to pay had the procedure been concluded to their detriment.
Amnestija bo za njih �e vedno privlačna, če to pomeni, da lahko pridobijo imuniteto, s tem da plačajo manj�i celotni znesek, kot bi ga morali plačati, če bi se postopek končal v njihovo �kodo.
However, the corollary is that the tax authorities will recover a lesser sum than could have been otherwise recovered, while renouncing any further verification.
Vendar pa bodo zaradi tega davčni organi izterjali nižji znesek, kot bi ga lahko drugače izterjali, obenem pa se �e odpovedali kakr�nemukoli nadaljnjemu preverjanju.
Third, the Italian Government points out that 31the amount paid under the amnesty may be verified against the figures in the returns made and that, where claims for reimbursement have already been made, recourse to the amnesty procedure does not preclude any verification of the validity of those claims.
Tretjič, italijanska vlada poudarja, 31da se lahko znesek, ki je bil plačan pod amnestijo, preveri z zneski v opravljenih obračunih in da, če so bili zahtevki za vračilo že vloženi, zatekanje k postopku amnestije ne preprečuje preverjanja veljavnosti teh zahtevkov.
It seems to me that this exclusion from immunity from verification is again likely to be marginal.
Zdi se mi, da bo ta izključitev od imunitete pred preverjanjem verjetno spet obrobna.
A trader who has claimed a VAT reimbursement to which he was not entitled will have done so either with or without the collusion of his suppliers in providing him with invoices showing an amount of input VAT not in fact accounted for to the authorities.
Trgovec, ki je zahteval vračilo DDV, do katerega ni bil upravičen, bo to storil s tajnim dogovorom ali brez tajnega dogovora z njegovimi dobavitelji, ki mu zagotavljajo račune z izkazanim zneskom vstopnega DDV, ki ni bil dejansko obračunan za organe oblasti.
If there has been such collusion, it may be wondered whether he will wish to take advantage of the amnesty at all unless detection seems already imminent, since he is in possession of documents entitling him prima facie to the reimbursement and recourse to the amnesty would necessarily involve denouncing his associate(s) in fraud. In
Če tak tajni dogovor obstaja, se je treba vpra�ati, če bo sploh želel izkoristiti amnestijo, razen če se zdi njegovo odkritje že verjetno, saj ima v lasti dokumente, ki ga na prvi pogled upravičujejo do vračila, pridobitev pravice do amnestije pa bi nujno vključevala razkritje njegovega partnerja ali njegovih partnerjev pri goljufiji. V primerih goljufije „neplačujoči gospodarski subjekt“ (kadar en ali več
31 — Under Article 9(9), in particular as interpreted by a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 July 2005.
633/72; glej člen 21(1)(d) (v členu 28g) Šeste direktive, člen 203 Direktive 2006/112.
Article 21(1)(d) (in Article 28g) of the Sixth Directive, Article 203 of Directive 2006/112.
31 – V skladu s členom 9(9), zlasti kot ga razlaga sodba ustavnega sodi�ča z dne 27. julija 2005.
That falls within the bounds of the latitude which the Commission itself recognises that the Member States enjoy in determining how to deploy resources in order best to ensure compliance and enforcement.
SHARPSTON – ZADEVAC-132/06 trgovcev izgine, ne da bi obračunali davek davčnim organom), bo preverjanje dobaviteljev per definitionem neuspe�no. In če ni bilo tajnega dogovora, bo manj verjetno, da bodo nepravilnosti odkrite ob preverjanju.
cases of ‘missing trader’ fraud (where one or more traders vanish without accounting for VAT to the authorities), investigation of the suppliers will by definition be fruitless.
nepobolj�ljivih davčnih zavezancev in tako pridobi večji prihodek, kot bi bil možen drugače.
And if there has been no collusion, it is less likely that irregularities will be revealed upstream on verification.
To spada v meje svobode, ki jo Komisija sama priznava državam članicam glede tega, kako uporabiti sredstva, da bi se najučinkoviteje zagotovilo izpolnjevanje obveznosti in izterjava.
Overall, the limitations on the scope of the amnesty invoked by the Italian Government, although not entirely illusory, do not appear substantial.
Gledano v celoti omejitve obsega amnestije, na katere se sklicuje italijanska vlada, čeprav ne popolnoma navidezne, niso bistvene.
Effectiveness of recovery and latitude available to Member States
Učinkovitost izterjave in svoboda, dana državam članicam
The Italian Government specifies that a total of 162 000 taxable persons took advantage of the Article 8 amnesty and 750 000 of the Article 9 amnesty.
Italijanska vlada navaja, da je vsega skupaj 162.000 davčnih zavezancev izkoristilo amnestijo iz člena 8, amnestijo iz člena 9 pa je izkoristilo 750.000 davčnih zavezancev.
The latter figure represents 13.37% of the 5 309 654 taxable persons registered in Italy in 2001.
Ta zadnja �tevilka predstavlja 13,37 % od 5.309.654 davčnih zavezancev, ki so bili registrirani v Italiji leta 2001.
33 In 2003, the total recovered (EUR 1 938 million) amounted to some 1.9% of total VAT (EUR 101 890 million) collected in that year.
33V letu 2003 je skupni izterjani znesek (1938 EUR milijonov) zna�al 1,9 % DDV, ki se je pobral v tistem letu (101.890 milijonov EUR).
By contrast, the amounts of VAT recovered following conventional verifications in the years 1999 to 2002 were much lower, varying between EUR 140 million and EUR 357 million and totalling only EUR 1 049 million over the four-year period.
Nasprotno pa so bili zneski, izterjani na podlagi konvencionalnih pregledov v letih od 1999 do 2002, mnogo nižji in so zna�ali le 1049 milijonov v �tiriletnem obdobju.
34Those figures demonstrate, in Italy’s view, how unfounded the action is.
34 Te �tevilke po mnenju Italije prikazujejo, kako neutemeljena je ta tožba.
It is common ground that, under the VAT system as currently harmonised, Member States are responsible for overseeing compliance by taxable persons, for verifying returns, accounts and all other relevant documents, and for calculating and collecting the tax due.
Nesporno je, da so v skladu z do sedaj usklajenim sistemom DDV države članice zavezane nadzorovati izpolnjevanje obveznosti davčnih zavezancev, preverjati obračune, knjigovodstvo in vse druge upo�tevne dokumente, ter odmerjati in pobirati dolgovan davek.
Nor is it disputed that they have a certain latitude in that regard, as to how most effectively to deploy the resources at their disposal.
Prav tako ni sporno, da imajo glede tega določeno svobodo, kako najbolj učinkovito uporabiti sredstva, ki jih imajo na razpolago.
The Commission retorts that the figures show rather that far too many taxable persons have taken advantage of the amnesty for far too limited a result.
Komisija odgovarja, da �tevilke nasprotno prikazujejo, kako je kar preveč davčnih zavezancev izkoristilo amnestijo za dokaj omejen izkupiček.
33 — That appears to be a miscalculation.
33 – Kaže da gre za napako pri izračunu. 750.000 je 14,125 % od 5.309.654.
The 162 000 for Article 8 amount to 3.05% of the total number of taxable persons.
162.000 iz člena 8 zna�a 3,05 % celotnega �tevila davčnih zavezancev.
34 — Comparing those figures with those for the total VAT collected in the same four years, as provided by the Italian Government, I calculate that the tax recovered following verifications amounted to between 0.18% and 0.38% of the total collected in a given year, or 0.3% of the total for the four-year period.
34 – S primerjavo te �tevilke s tistimi, ki predstavljajo celotni znesek pobranega DDV v istih �tirih letih, kot jih je predložila italijanska vlada, sem izračunala, da je izterjani davek predstavljal med 0,18 in 0,38% vsega pobranega davka v določenem letu, ali 0,3% v �tiriletnem obdobju.
Italy submits that the disputed provisions encourage spontaneous declaration of previously undeclared amounts by some taxable persons, thereby freeing resources to audit the unrepentant and providing overall a greater return than could otherwise have
Italija navaja, da sporne določbe spodbujajo prostovoljni obračun prej neobračunanih zneskov nekaterih davčnih zavezancev, s čimer se sprosti sredstva za nadzor
(increased and more efficient recovery) allegedly brought by the amnesty are illusory (the proportion recovered is tiny and the only real effect is to preclude verification by the tax authorities) and in any event quite irrelevant given the binding nature of the requirements of Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI izterjava), ki naj bi jih zagotovila amnestija, so navidezne (delež, ki je bil izterjan, je zelo majhen in edini resnični učinek je ta, da onemogoča preverjanje s strani davčnih organov) in v vsakem primeru precej nepomembne glede na zavezujočo naravo zahtev iz členov 2 in 22 Šeste direktive.