C-19/94
ECLI:EU:C:1995:51
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61994CC0019
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
SAFBA
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ELMER delivered on 21 February 1995 *
Introduction Dun — Bolbec — Auffay) and the French Ministry for the Budget concerning SAFBA's tax position.
1. As part of the common organization of the market in the sugar sector, rules have been laid down providing inter alia for the Member States to reimburse storage costs for certain forms of sugar. That reimbursement system is financed by the Member States SAFBA has its seat in Fontaine-le-Dun imposing a levy by unit of weight of sugar (France) and its business is the manufacture produced. of sugar from sugar beet. That manufactur ing is seasonal, in that production takes place from September to December of the same year. The finished product is disposed of throughout the year, so that it is necessary to store certain quantities of sugar which can The question on which the Court is asked to not be disposed of immediately after produc rule in this case is whether the obligation to tion. pay that levy arises on production of the sugar or whether it is conditional on the sugar being disposed of.
Facts of the case In its tax returns for the accounting years 1981 to 1983, SAFBA declared the levy on sugar produced in the accounting years in question as an expense. After the tax author ities had carried out an audit of SAFBA's accounts for those years, SAFBA's taxable 2. The question arose in connection with income was raised, on the basis that the obli proceedings between SAFBA (Société gation to pay the levy first arose when the Anonyme des Sucreries de Fontaine-le- sugar was disposed of and that therefore it was only the levy on sugar disposed of in the accounting years in question that could be * Original language: Danish. deducted as an expense in its tax returns.
I - 1053
OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-19/94
3. The case is now pending before the Cour 30 June 1981, stated in the first and third Administrative d'Appel, Nantes, to which subparagraphs of Article 8(1): SAFBA appealed after the Tribunal Adminis tratif, Rouen, on 5 November 1991, dis missed SAFBA's application for cancellation of the additional corporation tax demand for the years in question. In that connection the Cour Administrative d'Appel, Nantes, '1 . Subject to ... the storage costs in respect referred the following question to the Court of — white sugar ... manufactured from beet pursuant to Article 177, with reference to the or cane harvested in the Community shall be legislation cited below: reimbursed at a flat rate by the Member States.
'What is the chargeable event for the levy provided for in the provisions cited above?'
The Member States shall, according to the circumstances, impose a levy:
(a) on each sugar manufacturer, as appropri The relevant Community law provisions ate:
by unit of weight of sugar produced,
4. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974 on the common organiza ...'. 1 tion of the market in sugar, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1396/78 of 20 June 1978, 2 which was in force until
1 — OJ 1974 L 359, p. 1. With effect from 1 July 1981 the new Coun 2 — OJ 1978 L 170, p. 1. cil Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June
I - 1054
SAFBA
1981 on the common organization of the Furthermore, in Article 6(1) and (4) of Reg market in sugar came into force. The first ulation No 1358/77 it is laid down: and third subparagraphs of Article 8(2) of that regulation correspond essentially to the abovementioned provisions of the 1974 reg ulation, as amended in 1978.
'1 . The levy to be charged in the case referred to under (a) of the third subpara graph of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 shall be so fixed that, for any sugar marketing year, the estimated total of the levies shall be equal to the estimated total of the reimbursement referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) thereof.
5. According to Article 8(3)(a) of the 1974 regulation, as amended in 1978, and according to Article 8(4)(a) of the 1981 reg ulation, the Council is to adopt 'the general rules for the implementation of this Article'. Such rules are laid down in Council Regula tion (EEC) No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 lay ing down general rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation 4 (EEC) No 750/68 . The tenth recital in the preamble to that regulation states:
4. The Member State shall collect the levy from each sugar manufacturer in respect of the white ... sugar ..., referred to under (a) of the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74, produced and marketed within his maximum quota ...'
'... effective control of manufacturing can best be exercised when the sugar is being marketed; ... therefore, the levy should be 6. Commission Regulation (EEC) No collected from the manufacturer at the time 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down of marketing;' detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar, 5as amended by Commission
3 — OJ 1981 L 177, p. 1. 4 — OJ 1977 L 156, p. 4. 5 — OJ 1978 L 231, p. 5.
I - 1055
OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-19/94
6 The French Government and the Commis Regulation (EEC) No 2671/81, provides, in the first subparagraph of Article 12(1): sion have argued that those provisions merely lay down which persons are liable to pay the levy and the basis on which the levy is calculated. According to Article 6(4) of Council Regulation No 1358/77, the obliga tion to pay the levy arises, however, on the disposal of the sugar produced.
'The levy shall be incurred in respect of products as referred to in (a) of the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 at the moment of dispos al.' The Commission has further pointed out that even if the disposal of sugar should be regarded as the event giving rise to the obli gation to pay the levy under the common organization of the market in sugar, that does not preclude national tax rules which allow sugar manufacturers to deduct the levy The second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of at an earlier point in their tax returns. the implementing regulation gives a detailed definition of what should be regarded as a disposal in relation to the first subparagraph.
Opinion
Procedure before the Court
8. A direct examination of the abovemen- tioned provisions of Community law must support the Commission and the French Republic in their view that the levy first 7. SAFBA has claimed that it follows from arises when the sugar produced is disposed (a) of the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of. of Regulation No 3330/74, as amended by- Regulation No 1396/78, and the correspond ing third subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1785/81 that the event giving rise to the obligation to pay the levy is the production of sugar. The third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 3330/74, as amended by Council Regulation No 1396/78, lays 6 — OJ 1981 L 262, p. 17. down the group of persons liable to pay the
I - 1056
SAFBA
levy, namely sugar manufacturers, and the 9. In accordance therewith the Court stated basis for the levy, that is, by unit of weight in its judgment in Case 121/83 Zuckerfabrik of sugar produced. The same is true of the Franken GmbH [1984] ECR 2039 that: third subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981.
'The third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3330/74 of the Council merely lists the persons liable to the levy, namely sugar manufacturers, importers and refiners and, in addition, it establishes the basic unit for calculating the amount of the It is expressly stated in Article 8(3)(a) of the levy, the weight of the products in question. 1974 regulation as amended in 1978 and As regards the implementing regulation Article 8(4)(a) of the 1981 regulation that the adopted by the Council, No 1358/77, its levy is not thereby exhaustively regulated, purpose is to make it clear that the levy may since the Council is to adopt general rules in not be collected from sugar manufacturers that connection. until after the sugar or syrups produced have been marketed. None of those regulations contains a precise definition of the concept of disposal as the operative factor which gives rise to the obligation to pay the levy.
Those general rules were adopted in Regula In those circumstances the Commission was tion No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977, Article justified in defining the said concept in the 6(4) of which, in conjunction with the tenth contested provision of its legislation [Article recital in its preamble, can be understood 12 of Regulation No 1998/78 of 18 August only as meaning that the levy is payable by 1978] containing detailed rules for the imple the manufacturer on disposal, which is thus mentation of the system for offsetting stor the event giving rise to the obligation to pay age costs' (paragraphs 14 and 15). the levy, and therefore the point at which the conditions enabling the Member State in question to claim the levy from the person 7 liable are satisfied.
10. For it to be the disposal of sugar which 7 — Cf. Article 10(1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the serves as the point at which the obligation to laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of pay the levy arises also makes the best sense assessment, OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1, as subsequently amended. in the light of cash flow in relation to sugar
I - 1057
OPINION OF MR ELMER — CASE C-19/94
production and marketing. The production 11. The case before the court which made of sugar is not subject to other expenses, the reference concerns the interpretation of whereas the sugar manufacturers' expenses in the said Community law provisions solely to storing sugar are reduced by reimbursement the extent that the national French tax rules of the storage costs. Those expenses are are assumed to refer thereto in connection financed by a levy which is claimed from the with determination of the chargeable event sugar manufacturer when the sugar is dis for the levy. As the Commission has pointed posed of, typically by sale to a purchaser. out, those Community provisions do not Together there is a reduction in costs for the preclude national tax rules which allow sugar producers which is paid for by the consum manufacturers in their declarations of ers of sugar through the general price mech income and property to deduct the levy at anism. another and possibly earlier point in time.
Conclusion
12. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I would propose that the Court reply to the questions referred to it as follows:
Article 6(4) of Council (EEC) No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 should be understood as meaning that it is disposal which is the chargeable event giving rise to the obligation to pay the levy by unit of weight of sugar produced under the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1396/78 of 20 June 1978, and the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981.
I - 1058