natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Where a Member State has opted (under Article 4(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States) 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 that directive.’
Kadar je država članica izbrala (v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive Sveta z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic), 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) te direktive odmerjen od dividend.
3 April 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d’État (France), made by decision of 17 January 2007, received at the Court on 26 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-27/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Conseil d’État (Francija) z odločbo z dne 17. januarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 26. januarja 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-27/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-27/07 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodni tajnik: B.
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 21 November 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 21. novembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Lyal and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 January 2008,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti R. Lyal in J.-P. Keppenne, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 24. januarja 2008
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 4(2) and 7(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 4(2) in 7(2) Direktive Sveta 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str.
6, ‘the Directive’).
6, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva).
The reference has been made in proceedings between Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel (‘BFCM’) and the Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie (the French Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry).
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel (v nadaljevanju: BFCM) in Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie (ministrstvo za gospodarstvo, finance in industrijo).
Article 4 of the directive states:
Člen 4 Direktive določa:
Where a parent company, by virtue of its association with its subsidiary, receives distributed profits, the State of the parent company shall, except when the latter is liquidated, either:
Kadar matična družba prejme distribuirani dobiček iz naslova svoje povezave z odvisno družbo, razen če gre slednja v likvidacijo, se država matične družbe bodisi:
2008 — CASE C-27/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-27/07
— refrain from taxing such profits, or
– vzdrži obdavčenja tega dobička ali,
— tax such profits while authorising the parent company to deduct from the amount of tax payable that fraction of the corporation tax paid by the subsidiary which relates to those profits and, if appropriate, the amount of the withholding tax levied by the Member State in which the subsidiary is resident, pursuant to the derogations provided for in Article 5, up to the limit of the amount of the corresponding domestic tax.
– ta dobiček obdavči in hkrati dovoli matični družbi, da odbije od zneska izračunanega davka del korporacijskega davka, ki se nana�a na ta dobiček in ga je plačala odvisna družba, in, če je primerno, znesek pri viru odtegnjenega davka, ki je ga odmerila država članica, v kateri je odvisna družba rezident, na podlagi odstopanj, predvidenih v členu 5, do vi�ine zneska ustreznega notranjega davka.
However, each Member State shall retain the option of providing that any charges relating to the holding 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.
Vendar vsaka država članica ohrani možnost, da predpi�e, da se stro�ki, ki se nana�ajo na delež, in izgube, ki izhajajo iz distribucije dobička odvisne družbe, ne smejo odbiti od obdavčljivega dobička matične družbe.
Where the management costs relating to the holding in such a case are fixed as a flat rate, the fixed amount may not exceed 5% of the profits distributed by the subsidiary.
Kadar so v takem primeru stro�ki upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na ta delež, fiksni kot splo�na stopnja, fiksno določeni znesek ne sme presegati 5 % dobička, ki ga distribuira odvisna družba.
Article 5 of the directive is worded as follows:
Člen 5 Direktive določa:
Profits which a subsidiary distribute[s] to its parent company shall, at least where the latter holds a minimum of 25% of the capital of the subsidiary, be exempt from withholding tax.
Dobiček, ki ga odvisna družba distribuira svoji matični družbi, je vsaj kadar ta poseduje najmanj 25 % kapitala odvisne družbe, opro�čen pri viru odtegnjenega davka.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the Hellenic Republic may, for so long as it does not charge corporation tax on distributed profits, levy a withholding tax on profits distributed to parent companies of other Member States …
Ne glede na odstavek 1 lahko Helenska republika, dokler ne zaračunava korporacijskega davka na distribuirani dobiček, odmerja pri viru odtegnjeni davek na dobiček, distribuiran matičnim družbam v drugih državah članicah. […]
Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the Federal Republic of Germany may, for as long as it charges corporation tax on distributed profits at a rate at least 11 points lower than the rate applicable to retained profits, and at the latest until mid-1996, impose a compensatory withholding tax of 5% on profits distributed by its subsidiary companies.
Ne glede na odstavek 1 lahko Zvezna republika Nemčija, dokler zaračunava korporacijski davek na distribuirani dobiček po stopnji najmanj 11 točk nižji od stopnje, ki se uporablja za zadržan dobiček, in najpozneje do sredine 1996, naloži kompenzacijski davek, odtegnjen pri viru, v vi�ini 5 % na dobiček, ki ga distribuirajo njene odvisne družbe.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the Portuguese Republic may levy a withholding tax on profits distributed by its subsidiaries to parent companies of other Member States until a date not later than the end of the eighth year following the date of application of this Directive.
Ne glede na odstavek 1 lahko Portugalska republika odmerja pri viru odtegnjeni davek na dobiček, ki ga njene odvisne družbe distribuirajo na matične družbe v drugih državah članicah, najkasneje do konca osemletnega obdobja po začetku uporabe te direktive.
Article 7 of the directive states:
Člen 7 Direktive določa:
The term “withholding tax” as used in this Directive shall not cover an advance payment or prepayment (précompte) of corporation tax to the Member State of the subsidiary which is made in connection with a distribution of profits to its parent company.
Izraz ‚pri viru odtegnjeni davek‘, kot je uporabljen v tej direktivi, ne pokriva akontacije ali predplačila (précompte) korporacijskega davka državi članici odvisne družbe v zvezi z distribucijo dobička njeni matični družbi.
This Directive shall not affect the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation of dividends, in particular provisions relating to the payment of tax credits to the recipients of dividends.’
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 se nana�ajo na plačilo odbitkov za že plačane davke prejemnikom dividend.“
The tax regime for dividends paid to parent companies established in France is governed by Article 216 of the Code général des impôts (the General Tax Code, the ‘CGI’), which, in the version applicable to this case, states:
Davčni sistem glede dividend, izplačanih matičnim družbam s sedežem v Franciji, je določen v členu 216 code général des impôts (splo�ni zakonik o davkih, v nadaljevanju: CGI), ki v različici, veljavni v času dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari, določa:
The proportion of costs and expenses referred to in the first subparagraph is fixed in every case at 5% of the gross revenue from the holdings, including tax credits.
Delež pristojbin in stro�kov iz prvega pododstavka je določen v vi�ini 5 % celotnega dohodka od deležev, vključno z davčnimi odbitki.
That proportion may not exceed, however, for each tax period, the total amount of the costs and expenses of any nature incurred by the holding company during that period.’
Ta delež pa v posameznem davčnem obdobju ne sme presegati skupnega zneska katerih koli pristojbin in stro�kov, ki jih je v istem obdobju prijavila holdin�ka družba.“
Article 145 of the CGI states, in the version applicable to this case, that the tax regime for parent companies is applicable, inter alia, to companies subject to corporation tax at the normal rate which have holdings representing at least 5% of the capital of the issuing undertaking.
Člen 145 CGI v različici, veljavni v času dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari, določa, da se sistem za matične družbe uporablja med drugim za družbe, ki so obdavčene po običajni stopnji davka od dohodka pravnih oseb in imajo najmanj 5-odstotni delež kapitala zadevne družbe.
It is, in particular, stated that the tax credits in question ‘comprise both the tax credit (avoir fiscal) for income arising in France … and the foreign tax credit (crédit d’impôt étranger) for income from subsidiaries with their seat in a country with which France has a double taxation treaty’.
V njem je med drugim navedeno, da zadevni davčni odbitki „ustrezajo bodisi avoir fiscal za dohodek z izvorom v Franciji […] bodisi tujim davčnim odbitkom, odmerjenim od dohodka odvisnih družb s sedežem v državi, ki je s Francijo sklenila davčno konvencijo“.
According to the Conseil d’État, the tax treaties concluded by France with other Member States provide that a tax credit is to be given to a parent company established in France on the distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in another Member State where that distribution of profits has been subject to a withholding tax levied by the other Member State.
Conseil d’État meni, da se na podlagi mednarodnih konvencij, ki jih je Francoska republika sklenila z drugimi državami članicami, davčni odbitek prizna matični družbi s sedežem v Franciji takrat, ko odvisna družba s sedežem v drugi državi članici razdeli dobiček, če je druga država članica to razdelitev dobička obdavčila s pri viru odtegnjenim davkom.
That tax credit is to be equal to the amount of the withholding tax thus deducted.
Ta davčni odbitek je enak znesku tako plačanega pri viru odtegnjenega davka.
Pursuant to Article 146(2) of the CGI, in the version applicable to this case, where the distribution by a parent company to its own shareholders of dividends which it has received leads to the application of the précompte mobilier (imputation tax) provided for in Article 223 sexies of the CGI, the tax credits applied to dividends paid in the last five years (but not outside that period) may be set off against the précomptemobilier.
Člen 146(2) CGI v različici, veljavni v času dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari, določa, da kadar se zato, ker je matična družba svojim delničarjem razdelila dividende, ki jih je prejela, uporabi précompte mobilier (davčni odbitek), ki je določen v členu 223e CGI, se lahko davčni odbitki, povezani z dividendami, prejetimi pred petimi ali več leti, odbijejo od précompte mobilier.
In addition, according to the Conseil d’État, pursuant to an administrative circular of the Ministère de l’Économie des Finances et de l’Industrie, those tax credits may also be set off against the withholding tax payable on the redistribution of dividends by the parent company to persons not resident for tax purposes, or not having their seat, in France.
Poleg tega je po mnenju Conseil d’État na podlagi navodila ministrstva za gospodarstvo, finance in industrijo mogoče te davčne odbitke odbiti tudi od pri viru odtegnjenega davka, ki ga je mogoče zahtevati takrat, ko matična družba razdeljuje dividende osebam, ki nimajo davčnega domicila ali sedeža v Franciji.
The order for reference discloses that, pursuant to the tax regime for parent companies laid down in Article 216 of the CGI, BFCM deducted from its net total profits
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je BFCM na podlagi davčnega sistema za matične družbe, ki je določen v členu 216 CGI, od svojega skupnega neto dobička odbila
2008 — CASE C-27/07 the dividends which it received from its subsidiaries, but had to add back to its tax base a proportion of costs and expenses determined in accordance with that article.
2008 – ZADEVA C-27/07 dividende, ki so ji jih razdelile njene odvisne družbe, vendar je morala v davčno osnovo ponovno vključiti delež pristojbin in stro�kov, določenih v skladu z navedenim členom.
BFCM maintains, in that regard, that the Administrative circulars are contrary to Article 4 of the directive, in so far as the proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at a flat rate of 5% of the total revenue from the holdings, includes tax credits paid pursuant to tax treaties concluded by the French Republic with other Member States, while the directive provides that the amount of the charges which may not be deducted from the taxable income of the parent company, when fixed at a flat rate, is limited to 5% only of the profits distributed by the subsidiary.
V ta namen navaja, da sta navedeni navodili v nasprotju s členom 4 Direktive, ker znesek deleža pristojbin in stro�kov, ki je fiksno določen na 5 % od skupnega dohodka od deležev, zajema davčne odbitke, izplačane na podlagi davčnih konvencij, ki jih je Francoska republika sklenila z drugimi državami članicami, čeprav Direktiva določa, da lahko znesek stro�kov, ki jih ni mogoče odbiti od obdavčljivega dohodka matične družbe, kadar je fiksno določen, zna�a največ 5 % dobička, ki ga razdeli odvisna družba.
The Conseil d’État raises the question whether the addback to the taxable income of the parent company of a fixed proportion of costs and expenses equal to 5% of the revenue from holdings, tax credits included, constitutes a tax which exceeds the limit of 5% of the profits distributed permitted under Article 4(2) of the directive and which may affect the neutrality of the crossborder distribution of profits or whether it constitutes a tax whose only effect is partially to reduce the tax credit attributed to the parent company on the distribution of dividends and which may, therefore, be regarded as belonging to a body of provisions relating to the payment of tax credits to recipients of dividends and as aiming, by the same token, to lessen double taxation.
Glede tega se Conseil d’État spra�uje, ali je ponovna vključitev v obdavčljivi dohodek matične družbe fiksno določenega deleža pristojbin in stro�kov v vi�ini 5 % od dohodka od deležev, vključno z davčnimi odbitki, dajatev, ki presega prag 5 % razdeljenega dobička, ki je dovoljen s členom 4(2) Direktive, in bi lahko prizadela nevtralnost čezmejnega razdeljevanja dobička, ali pa je zadevna ponovna vključitev dajatev, ki povzroči samo delno zmanj�anje davčnega odbitka, ki se matični družbi prizna ob razdelitvi dividend, in je zato mogoče �teti, da izhaja iz celote določb v zvezi s plačilom odbitkov za že plačane davke prejemnikom dividend in da je namenjena tudi zmanj�anju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
In that respect, the Conseil d’État, first, refers to Case C-58/01 Océ Van der Grinten [2003] ECR I-9809, in which the Court held that a tax credit constitutes a fiscal instrument designed to avoid the economic double taxation of profits distributed in the form of dividends and does not constitute income from shares.
Conseil d’État se na podlagi tega na eni strani sklicuje na sodbo z dne 25. septembra 2003 v zadevi Océ Van der Grinten (C-58/01, Recueil, str. I-9809), v kateri je Sodi�če presodilo, da je davčni odbitek davčni instrument za izogibanje ekonomskemu dvojnemu obdavčevanju dobička, razdeljenega v obliki dividend in ne dohodek od vrednostnih papirjev.
The Conseil d’État states, second, that the addback of 5% of distributed net profits and of the tax credit to the taxable income of the parent company, in respect of the proportion of costs and expenses, places the parent company in a situation which is the same as that in which it would have found itself if there had been no withholding tax, as a result of the addback of a proportion of costs and expenses equal to 5% of profits distributed.
Conseil d’État na drugi strani pojasnjuje, da je matična družba zaradi ponovne vključitve 5 % neto razdeljenega dobička in davčnega odbitka v obdavčljivi dohodek matične družbe iz naslova deleža pristojbin in stro�kov v položaju, ki je enak položaju, v katerem bi bila – če ne bi bil pri viru odtegnjen noben davek – zaradi ponovne vključitve deleža pristojbin in stro�kov v vi�ini 5 % razdeljenega dobička.
However, that is the case only if the tax credit can be entirely set off against the tax payable by the parent company.
Vendar pa naj bi bilo tako samo, če bi bilo mogoče davčni odbitek v celoti odbiti od davka, ki ga je dolžna plačati matična družba.
According to the Conseil d’État, it follows from Article 146(2) of the CGI, in the version applicable to this case, and from administrative practice, as stated in Administrative circular No 4K-1121, that tax credits granted on a distribution of dividends to a parent company by its subsidiary established in another Member State may be set off against tax payable by the parent company only where those dividends are redistributed in the following five years.
Vendar naj bi po mnenju Conseil d’État iz člena 146(2) CGI v različici, veljavni v času dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari, in iz upravne prakse, kot je opredeljena v navodilu �t. 4K-1121, izhajalo, da se lahko davčni odbitki, ki se priznajo takrat, ko odvisna družba s sedežem v drugi državi članici svoji matični družbi razdeli dividende, odbijejo od davka, ki ga mora plačati matična družba, samo takrat, ko se te dividende ponovno razdeljujejo v naslednjih petih letih.
In that case, the addback of 5% of the tax credits to the taxable profits of the parent company in respect of the proportion of costs and expenses does not affect the principle of fiscal neutrality of the crossborder distribution of profits.
V tem primeru naj ponovna vključitev 5 % davčnih odbitkov v obdavčljivi dohodek matične družbe iz naslova deleža pristojbin in stro�kov ne bi prizadela davčne nevtralnosti čezmejnega razdeljevanja dobička.
By contrast, where the parent company decides not to redistribute those dividends within that period, the addback to its taxable income — in respect of the proportion of costs and expenses, equal to 5% of tax credits, which will not be set off against the tax that it must pay — has the effect of raising its taxable income above the limit of 5% of distributed profits actually received, laid down by Article 4(2) of the directive, and of affecting, to that extent, the fiscal neutrality of the crossborder distribution of profits.
Nasprotno pa po mnenju Conseil d’État, kadar se matična družba odloči, da svojih dividend ne bo ponovno razdelila v tem roku, ponovna vključitev 5 % davčnih odbitkov, ki ne bodo odbiti od davka, ki ga mora plačati, v obdavčljivi dohodek iz naslova deleža pristojbin in stro�kov, povzroči povečanje njenega obdavčljivega dohodka prek praga 5 % dejansko prejetega razdeljenega dobička, ki ga določa člen 4(2) Direktive, in v tej meri prizadene davčno nevtralnost čezmejnega razdeljevanja dobička.
In the latter case, according to the Conseil d’État, the question arises whether the increase in corporation tax paid by the parent company in proportion to the increase in its taxable income following the addback of 5% of the tax credits constitutes a tax which, in view of its small amount and the fact that it was imposed directly in
V tem zadnjem primeru se po mnenju Conseil d’État postavlja vpra�anje, ali je povečanje davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga plača matična družba v sorazmerju s povečanjem svojega obdavčljivega dohodka, ki nastane po ponovni vključitvi 5 % davčnih odbitkov v ta dohodek, dajatev, ki jo je zaradi njenega majhnega zneska in okoli�čine, da je bila uvedena v neposredni povezavi s plačilom odbitkov
2008 — CASE C-27/07 connection with the payment of tax credits granted in order to lessen the economic double taxation of dividends, can be regarded as not having been set at a rate such as to cancel the effects of that lessening of economic double taxation of dividends and thus as permitted under Article 7(2) of the directive.
2008 – ZADEVA C-27/07 za že plačane davke, uvedenih za zmanj�anje ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend, mogoče obravnavati kot dajatev, katere stopnja ni taka, da bi lahko izničila učinke zmanj�anja ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend, in torej kot dajatev, ki je dovoljena s členom 7(2) Direktive.
Accordingly, the Conseil d’État decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Zato je Conseil d’État prekinil odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložil to vpra�anje:
‘The addback to the taxable income of a parent company established in France of 5% of the tax credits attributed upon the distribution of profits by a subsidiary established in another Member State … where those distributed profits have been subject in that other State to a withholding tax, has no effect on the taxation level of the parent company if the latter is able to set off all the tax credits against the tax payable.
„Ponovna vključitev 5 % davčnih odbitkov, priznanih ob razdelitvi dobička odvisne družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici […], kadar je bil ta razdeljeni dobiček v tej drugi državi predmet pri viru odtegnjenega davka, v obdavčljivi dobiček matične družbe s sedežem v Franciji, ne vpliva na vi�ino obdavčitve matične družbe, kadar ta lahko davčne odbitke v celoti odbije od davka, ki ga je treba plačati.