natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tax amnesties commonly involve immunity from criminal penalties, from fines and from (some or all) interest payments — and the Commission explicitly accepts that, as regards VAT, such matters fall within the competence of the Member States, unfettered by Community law.
Davčne amnestije običajno vključujejo imuniteto pred kazenskim pregonom, globami in pred (nekatere ali vse) plačilom obresti – in Komisija izrecno sprejema, da v zvezi z DDV take zadeve spadajo v pristojnost držav članic in jih pravo Skupnosti pri tem ne ovira.
Equally commonly, however, amnesties require payment in full of amounts due and do not entail exemption from verification.
Vendar amnestije enako pogosto zahtevajo plačilo celotnega dolgovanega zneska in ne vključujejo izvzetja od preiskovanja.
The aim is generally to encourage voluntary payment by granting immunity from punishment (the threat of which is intended to encourage initial compliance but may also discourage delayed compliance if the price of repentance is too high) while not going so far as to make it more advantageous to evade and then repent than to make an accurate and honest initial declaration, and to bring errant taxpayers back into the fold for the future.
Njihov cilj je, da na splo�no spodbudijo prostovoljno plačilo, s tem da se podeli imuniteta pred kaznijo (grožnja, ki je namenjena, da se spodbudi prvotno izpolnjevanje obveznosti, vendar lahko odvrne kasnej�e izpolnjevanje obveznosti, če je cena kesanja previsoka), medtem ko ne gredo tako daleč, da bi izogibanje plačilu davka in kasnej�e kesanje postalo privlačnej�e od pravilnega in po�tenega prvotnega obračuna, in da davčne zavezance, ki so se zmotili, vključijo nazaj na pravo pot za prihodnost.
Italy rejoins that the disputed provisions encourage spontaneous declaration; that resources can thus be redirected to auditing taxable persons who do not take advantage of the provisions; that for such persons Article 10 of the 2003 Finance Law extended the possible verification period by two years; and that the amounts recovered were appreciably higher than they would otherwise have been.
Italija v dupliki navaja, da sporne določbe spodbujajo prostovoljni obračun; tako so sredstva lahko preusmerjena k pregledu zavezancev, ki niso izkoristili določb; da je za te zavezance člen 10 zakona o financah za leto 2003 podalj�al možnost preverjanja za dve leti; in da so bili izterjani zneski občutno vi�ji, kot bi bili drugače.
The advantages are thus real and cannot be considered irrelevant.
Koristi so tako resnične in se jih ne more �teti za nepomembne.
Moreover, (a) the amnesty concerns cases in which the failure to submit a return had not been detected and might never have been detected, (b) under Article 9 the taxable person must make a payment in respect of every tax year in the series even if only one is concerned by the original failure, (c) the tax, though less than the amount theoretically due, is recovered immediately rather than after a lengthy investigation and recovery procedure.
Nadalje (a) amnestija zadeva primere, pri katerih nepredložitev obračuna ni bila odkrita in lahko nikoli ne bi bila odkrita, (b) v skladu s členom 9 mora davčni zavezanec opraviti plačilo za vsako davčno leto v zaporedju, četudi prvotna opustitev zadeva le eno leto, (c) davek, čeprav nižji kot znesek, ki bi bil teoretično dolgovan, je izterjan takoj in ne po dolgem postopku preiskovanja in izterjave.
The literature 35 suggests that, in order to be effective, tax amnesties inter alia should be one-off (or repetition will induce taxpayers to adapt their tactics in anticipation of future amnesties), should involve payment of at least what was due and generally some interest (or evasion will be perceived as rewarded) and should be accompanied by at least a credible announcement of enhanced auditing (or the
Literatura 35navaja, da morajo davčne amnestije, da bi bile učinkovite, med drugim biti enkratne (ponavljanje bo spodbudilo davčne zavezance k prilagoditvi njihove taktike v pričakovanju amnestij v prihodnosti), vključevati plačilo vsaj tistega, kar je bilo dolgovano in na splo�no določene obresti (ali pa se bo izogibanje plačilu davka �telo za nagrajeno), in mora jih spremljati vsaj verjetno naznanilo podrobnej�ega
667, esp. at p. 693 et seq.
667, zlasti str.
The Commission’s objection to VAT amnesties does not appear to be absolute, but it is vehement with regard to the form taken by the disputed provisions.
Komisija ne zavrača amnestije DDV absolutno, vendar je odločna glede oblike, ki jo ima v skladu s spornimi določbami.
Italy claims that the amounts collected total nearly 2% of annual VAT income.
Italija navaja, da so pobrani zneski skupno zna�ali skoraj 2 % letnega prihodka od DDV.
If the VAT gap (the difference between the amount theoretically collectable and the amount actually collected) can be estimated at 35 to 40% in Italy, 39that means that the amount actually collected is in the region of 3 to 4% of the amount theoretically due but never declared. 40
Če zna�a DDV luknja (razlika med teoretično poberljivim zneskom in zneskom, ki se dejansko pobere) v Italiji približno 35 do 40 %, 39 to pomeni, da je dejansko pobrani znesek okoli 3 do 4 % zneska, ki je teoretično dolgovan, ampak nikoli obračunan. 40
The disputed amnesty does not appear to display any of those features.
Zdi se, da sporna amnestija nima niti ene od teh značilnosti.
It has indeed been extended for subsequent years, 36
Dokazano je tudi, da je Italija veliko uporabljala amnestije v preteklosti.
It is true that no tax authority can ever hope to catch all tax fraud and it would not be for the Court to advise Italy on how best to deploy its resources even if it had the necessary expertise to do so.
Res je, da noben davčni organ ne more niti pričakovati, da bo odkril vsako davčno utajo, niti ni naloga Sodi�ča svetovati Italiji, kako najbolje uporabiti njena sredstva, tudi če bi za to imelo potrebno ekspertizo.
None the less, it seems to me that a method which apparently brings in some 3 to 4% of uncollected tax (and thus leaves the uncollected amount at least 95% intact, with at least a proportion of that definitively irrecoverable) is not obviously an efficient use of resources.
Kljub temu pa se mi zdi, da metoda, ki izterja od 3 do 4 % nepobranega davka (in tako pusti znesek v vi�ini vsaj 95 % nedotaknjen, z vsaj deležem davka, ki je dokončno neizterljiv), ni očitno učinkovita poraba sredstev.
38 Even if, as Italy stated at the hearing, VAT receipts have in fact increased in subsequent years, no evidence has been put forward to establish either any specific link with the amnesty (rather than with any of the many other possible explanations) or any durable effect.
Četudi so se, kot je Italija navedla na obravnavi, davčni prihodki povečali v poznej�ih letih, ni bil predložen noben dokaz, da bi se ugotovilo bodisi določeno povezavo z amnestijo (namesto s katerimi drugimi možnimi obrazložitvami) bodisi kakr�enkoli trajen učinek.
36 — See footnote 3 above.
36 – Glej opombo 3 zgoraj.
Overall analysis
Celostna presoja
37 — A 1998 United States Congress paper states that ‘Italy has conducted more than a dozen tax amnesties, an average recently of about one every two years’. An article cited by the Commission in its application (Il condono fiscale tra genesi politica e limiti costituzionali, De Mita, Diritto e pratica tributaria, 2004, Parte I, p.
37 – Poročilo Kongresa Združenih držav iz leta 1998 navaja, da „je Italija razglasila več kot dvanajst amnestij, povprečno eno na dve leti v zadnjem obdobju“. Članek, ki ga navaja Komisija v svoji tožbi (Il condono fiscale tra genesi politica e limiti costituzionali, De Mita, Diritto e pratica tributaria, 2004, Parte I, str.
1449) states that the 2003 amnesty was the 58th since 1900.
1449), navaja, da je bila amnestija iz leta 2003 oseminpetdeseta od leta 1900.
It cannot be seriously maintained that the methods of raising revenue embodied
Ni mogoče resno zagovarjati tega, da so metode pridobivanja prihodka iz člena 8
See also Gradual Recovery in Euroland, Kai Carstensen, Klaus-Jürgen Gern, Christophe Kamps, Joachim Scheide, Kiel Discussion Papers 405: ‘… in the first half of 2003 Italy raised additional revenue equivalent to approximately 0.8% of GDP in connection with a large-scale tax amnesty.
Glej tudi Gradual Recovery in Euroland, Kai Carstensen, Klaus-Jürgen Gern, Christophe Kamps, Joachim Scheide, Kiel Discussion Papers 405: „[…] v prvem polletju 2003 je Italija izterjala dodatni prihodek, ki zna�a približno 0.8 % BDP v povezavi z obsežno davčno amnestijo.
In the short run, Italy was able to prevent exceeding the threshold of the Stability and Growth Pact thanks to this one-off measure.
Kratkoročno je Italija zahvaljujoč temu enkratnemu ukrepu uspela preprečiti, da bi prestopila prag Pakta za stabilnost in rast.
In the medium run, however, the probability of exceeding the 3% threshold increases.
Srednjeročno pa se možnost prestopiti 3 % prag vendar poveča.
As experience shows, frequent tax amnesties — in Italy it was the third amnesty in 20 years — weaken tax honesty.
Glede na izku�nje pogoste davčne amnestije – v Italiji je bila to tretja amnestija v dvajsetih letih – oslabijo davčno po�tenost.
In consequence, tax revenue is lower in the medium run and in the long run than what it would have been without the amnesty.’
Posledično je davčni prihodek srednje- in dolgoročno manj�i, kot bi bil brez amnestije“.
COMMISSION v ITALY encroachment on the proper application of VAT in accordance with the harmonising rules of the Sixth Directive.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI kr�itev pravilne uporabe DDV v skladu z usklajevalnimi predpisi Šeste direktive.
in Articles 8 and 9 of Italy’s 2003 Finance Law are in any way consistent with the rules for levying VAT which are imposed on the Member States by the Sixth Directive.
in 9 italijanskega zakona o financah za leto 2003 kakorkoli združljive s predpisi o odmeri DDV, ki jih morajo države članice spo�tovati na podlagi Šeste direktive.
Nothing in that directive allows a Member State to charge VAT at half its standard rate (which is the practical result of Article 8).
V tej direktivi nič ne dopu�ča državi članici, da naloži DDV po polovični splo�ni stopnji (kar je praktičen rezultat člena 8).
41Still less does it authorise the levying of an amount equivalent to 2% of declared input tax plus 2% of declared output tax in lieu of a totally undetermined amount of VAT which should have been declared but was not.
41Še manj dopu�ča, da se odmeri znesek v vi�ini 2 % obračunanega vstopnega davka plus 2 % obračunanega izstopnega davka, namesto popolnoma neugotovljenega zneska DDV, ki bi moral biti obračunan, pa ni bil.
Finally, although VAT is a ‘self-assessed’ tax, it is clear that Member States are required to verify and enforce compliance, and are not authorised to abdicate that responsibility in respect of whole swathes of taxable economic activity.
Končno, čeprav je DDV davek, ki ga „obračuna davčni zavezanec“, je očitno, da morajo države članice to preverjati in zagotoviti izpolnjevanje davčnih obveznosti glede celotnega spektra obdavčljivih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
Nor does it appear credible to defend them on grounds of an efficient use of resources.
Prav tako se ne zdi verjetno, da bi se jih zagovarjalo zaradi učinkovite porabe sredstev.
On the contrary, as common sense and economic analysis demonstrate, they are liable to lead to diminished VAT compliance in (at least) the medium and long term because they reward noncompliance over compliance and, viewed in historical context, hold out plausible hope of similar treatment in future.
Nasprotno, kot kažeta splo�no znanje in ekonomska analiza, te določbe vodijo do zmanj�anega izpolnjevanja obveznosti glede DDV (vsaj) srednje- in dolgoročno, ker nagrajujejo neizpolnjevanje obveznosti namesto izpolnjevanja in, gledano v zgodovinskem okviru, dajejo verjetno upanje podobnega obravnavanja v prihodnosti.
The disputed amnesty provisions apply in theory to the whole of Italy’s undeclared taxable trade, which is consistently estimated by economists as representing a sizeable portion of the country’s GNP — perhaps between 25 and 40%.
Sporne določbe o amnestiji se teoretično uporabljajo za vso v Italiji neprijavljeno obdavčljivo trgovino, za katero ekonomisti redno ocenjujejo, da predstavlja precej�nji del nacionalnega BDP – mogoče med 25 in 40 %.
In practice, they have been resorted to, according to the Italian Government’s figures, by over 17% of taxable persons.
V praksi je določbe o amnestiji glede na �tevilke italijanske vlade uporabilo več kot 17 % davčnih zavezancev.
42 Their effect is thus far from insignificant, and constitutes a serious
42 Njihov učinek je torej dokaj pomemben in predstavlja resno
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Proced ure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili prigla�eni. Ker menim, da je treba predlogu Komisije ugoditi, in ker je priglasila stro�ke, sledi, da je treba Italiji naložiti
42 — According to the Commission at the hearing, the number of those who took advantage of the amnesty significantly exceeds the total number of taxable persons in a mediumsized Member State such as Belgium.
42 – Glede na navedbe Komisije na obravnavi �tevilo oseb, ki so uporabile amnestijo, občutno presega celotno �tevilo davčnih zavezancev v srednje veliki državi članici, kot je Belgija.
ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
stro�ke postopka.
I am consequently of the opinion that the Court should
Tako Sodi�ču predlagam, naj
— declare that, by explicitly providing in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 (Finance Law for 2003) for a general waiver of verification operations on taxable transactions effected in the course of a series of tax years, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive in conjunction with Article 10 of the EC Treaty;
– razglasi, da Italijanska republika s tem, da je v členih 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289 z dne 27. decembra 2002 (zakon o financah za leto 2003) izrecno sprejela splo�no opustitev preverjanja obdavčljivih transakcij, ki so bile opravljene v zaporednih davčnih letih, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz členov 2 in 22 Šeste direktive v povezavi s členom 10 Pogodbe ES;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
– naloži Italijanski republiki plačilo stro�kov.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 17. julija 2008 *
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 March 2006,
V zadevi C-132/06, zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložene 7. marca 2006,
2008 — CASE C-132/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-132/06
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 September 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 October 2007, gives the following
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 12. septembra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 25. oktobra 2007 izreka naslednjo
By its action, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by explicitly providing in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s to tožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj ugotovi, da Italijanska republika, s tem da je v členih 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289 z dne 27. decembra 2002 o pravilih o oblikovanju letne in večletne državne bilance (finančni zakon iz leta 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)) (redni dodatek �t. 240/L h GURI �t.
Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) (‘the Sixth Directive’), and Article 10 EC.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva), in iz člena 10 ES.
Article 10 EC provides:
Člen 10 ES določa:
‘Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.
„Države članice sprejemajo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splo�ne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz te pogodbe ali so posledica ukrepov institucij Skupnosti.
The second recital in the preamble to the Sixth Directive reads as follows:
V drugi uvodni izjavi Šeste direktive je navedeno:
‘… the budget of the Communities shall, irrespective of other revenue, be financed entirely from the Communities’ own resources; … these resources are to include those accruing from value added tax [‘VAT’] and obtained by applying a common rate of tax on a basis of assessment determined in a uniform manner according to Community rules’.
„ker […] se ne glede na druge prihodke proračun Skupnosti v celoti financira iz lastnih sredstev Skupnosti; ker naj bi ta sredstva vključevala tudi sredstva iz davka na dodano vrednost [(v nadaljevanju: DDV)], dobljena z uporabo skupne davčne stopnje od osnove za odmero, ki se enotno določi v skladu s pravili Skupnosti.“
The fourth recital in the preamble to that directive is worded as follows:
V četrti uvodni izjavi te direktive je navedeno:
‘… account should be taken of the objective of abolishing the imposition of tax on the importation and the remission of tax on exportation in trade between Member States; … it should be ensured that the common system of turnover taxes is nondiscriminatory as regards the origin of goods and services, so that a common market permitting fair competition and resembling a real internal market may ultimately be achieved’.
„ker je treba upo�tevati cilj odprave obdavčitve pri uvozu in odpustitev davka pri izvozu v trgovini med državami članicami; ker je treba zagotoviti, da skupni sistem prometnih davkov ni diskriminatoren glede porekla blaga in storitev, da bo mogoče vzpostaviti skupni trg, ki bo omogočal lojalno konkurenco in odražal dejanski notranji trg“.
The 14th recital in the preamble to that directive reads as follows:
V �tirinajsti uvodni izjavi navedene direktive je navedeno:
‘… the obligations of taxpayers must be harmonised as far as possible so as to ensure the necessary safeguards for the collection of taxes in a uniform manner in all the Member States; … taxpayers should, in particular, make a periodic aggregate return of their transactions, relating to both inputs and outputs where this appears necessary for establishing and monitoring the basis of assessment of own resources’.
„ker je treba obveznosti davkoplačevalcev čim bolj uskladiti, da se zagotovijo potrebne varovalke za pobiranje davkov na enoten način v vseh državah članicah; ker morajo davkoplačevalci zlasti sestavljati periodične skupne obračune svojih transakcij, nana�ajoče se na vložena sredstva in rezultate, kadar je to potrebno za določitev in spremljanje osnove za odmero virov lastnih sredstev“.
Under Article 2 of the Sixth Directive, both the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such and the importation of goods are to be subject to VAT.
V skladu s členom 2 Šeste direktive je predmet DDV dobava blaga ali storitev, ki jo davčni zavezanec, ki deluje kot tak, opravi na ozemlju države za plačilo, ter uvoz blaga.
Article 22 of the Sixth Directive provides:
Člen 22 Šeste direktive določa:
Every taxable person shall pay the net amount of the [VAT] when submitting the return.
Vsak davčni zavezanec plača neto znesek [DDV] ob predložitvi obračuna.
The Member States may, however, fix a different date for the payment of the amount or may demand an interim payment.
Države članice pa lahko določijo drugačen datum za plačilo zneska ali lahko zahtevajo vmesno plačilo.
8. … Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary for the correct levying and collection of the tax and for the prevention of fraud.
8. […] države članice [lahko] naložijo �e druge obveznosti, za katere menijo, da so potrebne za pravilno odmero in pobiranje davka ter preprečevanje goljufij.
Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002, which govern the ‘Supplementary return in respect of past years’ and the ‘Automatic settlement in respect of past years’, respectively, relate both to VAT and to other taxes and compulsory levies.
Člena 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002, ki urejata „Dodatne obračune elementov obdavčitve za prej�nja leta“ in „Avtomatično poravnavo za prej�nja leta“, se nana�ata tako na DDV kot na druge obvezne davke in dajatve.
Article 8 of Law No 289/2002
Člen 8 zakona �t. 289/2002
Article 8 of Law No 289/2002 essentially allows taxable persons to submit a supplementary VAT return in order to correct returns which have already been filed in respect of tax periods falling between 1998 and 2001.
Člen 8 zakona �t. 289/2002 v bistvu določa možnost, da davčni zavezanec predloži dodatni obračun za DDV, da bi popravil obračune, ki so bili že predloženi za davčna leta od 1998 do 2001.
Under Article 8(3), the supplementary return must be accompanied by payment of the additional VAT due before 16 April 2003, the amount of which is calculated by ‘applying the provisions in force during each of the tax periods’.
V skladu z navedenim členom 8(3) mora biti hkrati z obračunom plačan dodatni znesek DDV, dolgovan pred 16. aprilom 2003, s tem da se zadnjenavedeni izračuna „v skladu z določbami, ki so veljale v posameznem davčnem letu“.
That return is valid only if it shows additional sums due of at least EUR 300 for each tax year.
Navedeni obračun je veljaven samo, če prikazuje dodatne dolgovane zneske v vi�ini vsaj 300 EUR za vsako davčno leto.
Payments may be made in two equal instalments if they exceed EUR 3 000 for individuals or EUR 6 000 for legal persons.
Plačila se lahko opravijo v dveh enakih obrokih, če presegajo 3000 EUR za posameznike in 6000 EUR za pravne osebe.
Article 8(4) of Law No 289/2002 provides for the possibility of filing a supplementary VAT return under a confidential procedure.
Člen 8(4) zakona �t. 289/2002 določa možnost, da se dodatni obračun predloži v okviru zaupnega postopka.
However, that option is not available if the taxable person has not filed any returns for the tax years in question.
Vendar davčni zavezanec, ki ni predložil obračuna za niti eno zadevno davčno leto, nima te možnosti.
Under Article 8(6) of Law No 289/2002, the effect of submitting a supplementary VAT return is that, in respect of amounts equivalent to the additional VAT due under that return increased by 100% — in other words, a VAT amount due which is double that declared by the taxable person — fiscal administrative penalties lapse, criminal penalties may no longer be applied to the taxable person concerned for certain offences under tax law or ordinary law, and no more tax verifications may be carried out.
V skladu s členom 8(6) tega zakona ima predložitev dodatnega obračuna DDV v zvezi z zneski, ki so enaki povečanemu DDV, ki izhajajo iz tega obračuna, povečanega za 100 %, torej v vi�ini dvojnega zneska DDV, ki ga je obračunal davčni zavezanec, za posledico ugasnitev upravnih in davčnih sankcij, izključitev uporabe kazenskopravnih sankcij za zadevnega davčnega zavezanca za določene davčne kr�itve in kr�itve splo�nega prava ter izključitev vsakr�nega davčnega nadzora.