natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As to the UK authorities, they indicated that, in the final year of the 2000 list, BT represented about 70 % of the total rateable value in the fixed-line telecommunications sector, and about 71,6 % of fixed-line call and access revenues according to OFCOM figures.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so navedli, da je BT po podatkih urada OFCOM v zadnjem letu seznama za leto 2000 pomenil približno 70 % skupne fiksne obdavčljive vrednosti telekomunikacijskega sektorja fiksnih linij in približno 71,6 % prihodkov od klicev in dostopa s fiksnih linij.
The Commission can agree that a comparison of BT with all the Altnet operators taken together may provide more pertinent conclusions than a comparison of BT individually with small operators such as Vtesse.
Komisija se lahko strinja, da primerjava BT z vsemi operaterji Altneta skupaj lahko zagotovi primernejše sklepe kot posamična primerjava BT z majhnimi operaterji, kakršen je Vtesse.
On this basis, it appears that BT pays a proportion of the total rateable value in the fixed-line telecommunications sector that is very similar to its share in the fixed-line telecommunications market.
Na podlagi tega se zdi, da BT v sektorju fiksnih telekomunikacij plačuje sorazmeren del skupne obdavčljive vrednosti, ki je zelo podoben njegovemu deležu na trgu fiksnih telekomunikacij.
It must be recalled, however, that this is again a comparison between rates and revenues, the relevance of which is limited and at best only indicative.
Kljub temu je treba opozoriti, da gre tudi tukaj za primerjavo med davkom in prihodki, katere pomembnost je omejena in v najboljšem primeru samo okvirna.
It must be noted that, instead of BT's market share of the total call and access revenues, Vtesse recommends that BT's market share of access revenues be taken into account.
Treba je navesti, da Vtesse priporoča, da se namesto tržnega deleža BT pri vseh prihodkih od klicev in dostopa upošteva tržni delež BT pri dohodkih od dostopa.
On that market, BT commands a share of over 80 %.
Na navedenem trgu BT nadzoruje več kot 80-odstotni delež.
In the view of Vtesse, this is further evidence that BT's hereditament is undervalued since BT only represents 70 % of the total rateable value in the fixed line telecommunication sector.
Po mnenju Vtesse je to dodaten dokaz, da so nepremičnine BT ovrednotene prenizko, saj BT v sektorju fiksnih telekomunikacij pomeni samo 70 % celotne obdavčljive vrednosti.
The Commission cannot agree with this argument.
Komisija se s to trditvijo ne more strinjati.
First, BT's share in total access and call revenues seems a more appropriate benchmark for the purpose of assessing the burden of business rates: call revenues represent a larger share of BT's total revenues than access revenues.
Prvič, delež BT v celotnih prihodkih od klicev in dostopa se zdi ustreznejše merilo uspešnosti za ocenjevanje bremena poslovnega davka: prihodki od klicev pomenijo večji delež celotnih prihodkov BT kot prihodki od dostopa.
Therefore, call revenues have a very significant impact on the hypothetical rent and rateable value of BT's network and should be taken into account in any comparison between revenues and rateable values.
Prihodki od klicev torej bistveno vplivajo na hipotetično najemnino in obdavčljivo vrednost omrežja BT, zato jih je treba upoštevati pri vsakršni primerjavi med prihodki in obdavčljivimi vrednostmi.
Secondly, even if BT's share of access revenues only is to be used, the difference between that share (80 %) and BT's share in the total rateable value in the fixed-line telecommunications sector (70 %) at a specific moment in time is not such as to raise questions on the level of BT's rateable value, especially in view of the limited value of any comparison between rates and revenues.
Drugič, tudi če je treba uporabiti samo delež prihodkov od dostopa BT, razlika med tem deležem (80 %) in deležem BT v celotni obdavčljivi vrednosti v sektorju fiksnih telekomunikacij (70 %) v določenem trenutku ni takšna, da bi lahko odprla vprašanja o stopnji obdavčljive vrednosti BT, zlasti glede na omejeno vrednost vsakršne primerjave med davkom in prihodki.
Vtesse suggests another method for proving the existence of an advantage to BT.
Vtesse predlaga še eno metodo za dokaz obstoja ugodnosti za BT.
It consists of pointing to the alleged discrepancy between the rateable values per unit of the different components (e.g. optic fibres, connections, buildings) of BT's network and those applied to other telecommunications operators.
Ta obsega opozarjanje na domnevno razliko med obdavčljivimi vrednostmi na enoto različnih sestavnih delov (npr. optičnih vlaken, priključkov, zgradb) omrežja BT in tistih, ki veljajo za druge telekomunikacijske operaterje.
On that basis, Vtesse concludes that the R&E method has resulted in a lower valuation of BT's hereditament than would have been achieved under the rental method.
Na podlagi tega Vtesse ugotavlja, da je metoda prejemkov in izdatkov povzročila nižje vrednotenje nepremičnin BT, kot bi bilo doseženo po metodi najemnine.
Vtesse points out, for instance, that BT is rated at GBP 34 per square metre for buildings compared with GBP 115 per square metre in the case of other telecommunication operators, at GBP 74 per kilometre of optic fibre compared with the GBP 1000/1200 per optic fibre pair in the case of other operators, and GBP 19 per connection per year, compared with the annual fee of GBP 122 actually paid by operators for unbundled local loops.
Vtesse na primer poudarja, da je BT obdavčen s 34 GBP na kvadratni meter za zgradbe v primerjavi s 115 GBP na kvadratni meter pri drugih telekomunikacijskih operaterjih, s 74 GBP na kilometer optičnih vlaken v primerjavi s 1000/1200 GBP na par optičnih vlaken pri drugih operaterjih, in z 19 GBP na priključek na leto v primerjavi z letno pristojbino v višini 122 GBP, ki jih operaterji dejansko plačujejo za razvezane krajevne zanke.
That approach is not satisfactory for a number of reasons.
Zaradi več razlogov ta pristop ni zadovoljiv.
First of all, the UK authorities have convincingly argued that those figures, if they are correct, are not directly comparable.
Prvič, organi Združenega kraljestva so prepričljivo trdili, da navedene številke, če so pravilne, niso neposredno primerljive.
For reasons already stated in recital 125, BT's and Kingston's optic fibre networks are of a different nature from, and not comparable with, those of other operators.
Zaradi razlogov, navedenih že v uvodni izjavi 125, sta omrežji iz optičnih vlaken BT in Kingstona drugačne vrste kot omrežja drugih operaterjev in z njimi nista primerljivi.
It is therefore not possible to apply rental evidence derived from other operators' optic fibre networks to BT or Kingston.
Zato pri BT in Kingstonu ni mogoče uporabiti dokazov o najemnini, ki izhajajo iz omrežij iz optičnih vlaken drugih operaterjev.
In any case, the calculations and comparisons made by Vtesse are flawed.
Izračuni in primerjave, ki jih je opravil Vtesse, so v vsakem primeru napačni.
First, for an appropriate comparison, it would be necessary to take only BT's lit fibres into account since only lit fibres are rated.
Prvič, za ustrezno primerjavo bi bilo nujno treba upoštevati samo priključena optična vlakna BT, saj so obdavčena samo priključena optična vlakna.
More importantly, Vtesse compared BT's average rateable value of km of optic fibre with the rental value of a fibre pair per route.
Kar je še pomembneje, Vtesse je povprečno obdavčljivo vrednost kilometra optičnih vlaken BT primerjal z najemno vrednostjo para optičnih vlaken pri posameznem usmerjanju.
In fact, the rental value of an optic fibre as applied by the VOA will vary according to the number of optic fibres per route.
Dejansko se bo najemna vrednost optičnega vlakna, ki jo je uporabila VOA, spreminjala glede na število optičnih vlaken pri posameznem usmerjanju.
The more fibres per route, the lower their rental value will be.
Več ko bo vlaken pri posameznem usmerjanju, nižja bo njihova najemna vrednost.
Thus, taking the lit fibre rent tone applied as of 2005, it appears that the rental value of two optic fibre (i.e. a single fibre pair) per route km for networks above 3000 km will be GBP 450.
Tako se ob upoštevanju najemnine za priključeno vlakno, ki se uporablja po letu 2005, zdi, da bo najemna vrednost dveh optičnih vlaken (tj. enega para vlaken) na km usmerjanja v omrežju nad 3000 km znašala 450 GBP.
The rental value of three optic fibres per route km will be GBP 540, i.e. GBP 180 per optic fibre.
Najemna vrednost treh optičnih vlaken na km usmerjanja bo znašala 540 GBP, tj. 180 GBP na optično vlakno.
At the lower end of the table, the rental value of 48 optic fibres per route km will be GBP 1728, i.e. GBP 36 per optic fibre.
Na spodnjem delu razpredelnice bo najemna vrednost 48 optičnih vlaken na km usmerjanja znašala 1728 GBP, tj. 36 GBP na optično vlakno.
The VOA claims that these values are market based.
VOA trdi, da so te vrednosti tržne.
It is clear that BT's core network has, on average, dozens of lit fibres per route.
Očitno je, da ima osrednje omrežje BT na posameznem usmerjanju v povprečju priključenih na ducate optičnih vlaken.
It means that the rateable value of BT per km of optic fibre should be compared with the lower end of the rating list used by the VOA.
To pomeni, da je treba obdavčljivo vrednost BT na km optičnih vlaken primerjati s spodnjim delom seznama za odmero davka, ki ga uporablja VOA.
On that basis, it appears that, contrary to what is claimed by Vtesse, a comparison between BT's rateable value per km of optic fibre and the rental values used by the VOA does not show any significant discrepancy or indicate an undervaluation of BT's network.
Na podlagi tega se zdi, da v nasprotju trditvami Vtesse primerjava obdavčljive vrednosti na km optičnih vlaken z najemnimi vrednostmi, ki jih uporablja VOA, ne pokaže bistvene razlike, niti ne kaže na prenizko vrednotenje omrežja BT.
Concerning the comparison between the LLU tariff and BT's rateable value per connection, it is noted, first, that, according to the UK authorities, the LLU tariff is not the same as the rent for the rateable asset, since a significant proportion of the tariff relates to system and maintenance costs, billing, and costs of using BT's non-rateable plant and machinery.
Kar zadeva primerjavo tarife za razvezavo krajevne zanke in obdavčljive vrednosti na priključek, je najprej navedeno, da po navedbah organov Združenega kraljestva tarifa za razvezavo krajevne zanke ni enaka tarifi za obdavčljivo premoženje, ker se precejšen delež tarife nanaša na stroške sistema in vzdrževanja, zaračunavanje ter stroške za uporabo neobdavčljivih strojev in opreme BT.
It is therefore not directly comparable with the legal definition of the rateable value.
Zato ni neposredno primerljiva s pravno opredelitvijo obdavčljive vrednosti.
Secondly, the UK authorities have indicated that some local loops will in fact have a high value, some a low value and some may even have a negative value.
Drugič, organi Združenega kraljestva so navedli, da bodo nekatere krajevne zanke v resnici imele visoko in nekatere nizko vrednost, vrednost nekaterih pa bo lahko celo negativna.
On the other hand, according to OFCOM, the provision of LLU services is aimed at stimulating competition in broadband services.
Po drugi strani je zagotavljanje storitev razvezave krajevne zanke po navedbah urada OFCOM namenjeno spodbujanju konkurence pri širokopasovnih storitvah.
Local Loop Unbundling is therefore also affected by the demand for broadband services and there is no demand for broadband services on a large number of BT's local loops, which are only required for telephony.
Na razvezavo krajevne zanke torej vpliva tudi povpraševanje po širokopasovnih storitvah, na zelo velikem številu lokalnih zank BT pa ni povpraševanja po širokopasovnih storitvah, ki so potrebne samo za telefonijo.
Therefore, the LLU tariff does not reflect the average value of all BT's connections, and no conclusion can be drawn from a comparison of BT's rateable value per connection and the LLU tariff.
Tarifa za razvezavo krajevne zanke torej ne odraža povprečne vrednosti vseh priključkov BT, zato iz primerjave obdavčljive vrednosti na priključek BT in tarife za razvezavo krajevne zanke ni mogoče izpeljati nobenega sklepa.
As shown by OFCOM in its comments on the decision to initiate the procedure, this ratio is almost identical for BT, NTL and Telewest, despite the fact that a different valuation method was applied to the last two companies.
Kot je OFCOM pokazal v svojih pripombah k odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, je razmerje za BT, NTL in Telewest skoraj enako, in sicer kljub dejstvu, da se je pri zadnjih dveh družbah uporabila drugačna metoda vrednotenja.
For the reasons explained above, the ratio for NTL and Telewest appears to be more appropriate a benchmark than the LLU tariffs quoted by Vtesse, and the comparison between these ratios does not show any discrepancy between the different operators.
Zaradi zgoraj pojasnjenih razlogov se zdi, da je razmerje NTL in Telewesta primernejše merilo uspešnosti kot tarife za razvezavo krajevne zanke, na katere se sklicuje Vtesse, primerjava razmerij pa ne pokaže nikakršnih razlik med različnimi operaterji.
It is further to be noted that, under its assessment, the VOA is considering applying a rateable value in the range of GBP 15 — GBP 20 per unbundled local loop, which again is in line with the valuation of BT's rateable value per connection.
Poleg tega je treba navesti, da VOA v okviru svoje ocene upošteva uporabo obdavčljive vrednosti v razponu od 15 GBP do 20 GBP na razvezano krajevno zanko, kar je spet v skladu z vrednotenjem obdavčljive vrednosti BT na priključek.
As to the alleged difference in rateable value per square metre for buildings, the Commission first notes that the correct figure derived from the Telereal transaction is not GBP 35 per square metre as alleged by Vtesse but, applying a calculation similar to that of Vtesse, GBP 51 per square metre.
Glede domnevne razlike v obdavčljivi vrednosti na kvadratni meter za zgradbe Komisija najprej navaja, da pravilni znesek, ki izhaja iz posla s Telerealom, ni 35 GBP na kvadratni meter, kot to navaja Vtesse, ampak na podlagi izračuna, podobnega izračunu Vtesse, znaša 51 GBP na kvadratni meter.
Furthermore, this figure is compared by Vtesse with an alleged GBP 115 per square metre for other telecommunications operators.
Poleg tega Vtesse to številko primerja z domnevnimi 115 GBP na kvadratni meter za druge telekomunikacijske operaterje.
The basis and comparability of this figure is not clear and it does not reflect the variations that are likely to exist as a result, in particular, of the respective geographical locations of the telecommunication operators.
Podlaga in primerljivost te številke nista jasni ter ne odražata verjetnih razlik, še zlasti na podlagi zadevnih geografskih lokacij telekomunikacijskih operaterjev.
The UK authorities have pointed out that BT's property portfolio covers the whole of the United Kingdom, including its most deprived and isolated areas, which has a downward effect on the average rental value of its properties.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so poudarili, da premoženjski portfelj BT pokriva celotno Združeno kraljestvo, vključno z njegovimi socialno najbolj ogroženimi in najodročnejšimi območji, kar znižuje povprečno najemno vrednost njegovega premoženja.
More importantly, it should be recalled that BT's general purpose buildings, such as offices, or warehouses, which are not related or linked to the network, are valued locally and separately, on the basis of the rental method.
Kar je še pomembnejše, treba je opozoriti, da so zgradbe BT za splošno uporabo, na primer pisarne ali skladišča, ki nimajo zveze ali povezave z omrežjem, ovrednotene lokalno in ločeno, in sicer na podlagi metode najemnine.
In 2000, their rateable value was GBP180 million.
Leta 2000 je njihova obdavčljiva vrednost znašala 180 milijonov GBP.
Operational and specialised buildings, such as telephone exchanges are considered to form part of BT's network and are centrally valued by the VOA using the R&E method.
Za poslovne in specializirane zgradbe, kot so telefonske centrale, se šteje, da so del omrežja BT, in VOA jih ovrednoti centralno, pri čemer uporabi metodo prejemkov in izdatkov.
The rent paid by BT to Telereal following the transaction was GBP 280 million.
Najemnina, ki jo je BT plačal Telerealu po sklenjenem poslu, je znašala 280 milijonov GBP.
The total rateable value of BT's buildings includes both the rateable value of BT's separately assessed buildings, which was approximately GBP 180 million in 2000, and the rateable value of the buildings included in the overall valuation of its network, which it is not possible to specifically identify but which represents a significant share of the GBP 560 million rateable value of BT's network in the United Kingdom.
Skupna obdavčljiva vrednost zgradb BT vključuje obe, obdavčljivo vrednost ločeno ocenjenih zgradb BT, ki je leta 2000 znašala približno 180 milijonov GBP, in obdavčljivo vrednost zgradb, vključenih v skupno vrednotenje njegovega omrežja, ki je ni mogoče posebej opredeliti, vendar pomeni precejšen delež v 560 milijonih GBP obdavčljive vrednosti omrežja BT v Združenem kraljestvu.
These figures do not show that there is a significant discrepancy between the actual market value of BT's buildings, reflected by the Telereal transaction, and their rateable value as calculated by the VOA.
Te številke ne kažejo na bistveno razliko med dejansko tržno vrednostjo zgradb BT, odraženo v poslu s Telerealom, in njihovo obdavčljivo vrednostjo, ki jo je izračunala VOA.
Therefore, these figures do not provide any evidence that this rateable value is undervalued.
Zato te številke niso dokaz, da je ta obdavčljiva vrednost prenizka.
Vtesse put forward a secondary argument on the basis of the Telereal argument.
Vtesse je na podlagi trditve v zvezi s Telerealom navedla še eno dodatno trditev.
Vtesse suggests that the rent paid by BT to Telereal for its buildings represents roughly 50 % of its rateable value in 2001, despite the fact that most of the rateable value should be mainly attributable to its network and not its buildings.
Vtesse meni, da najemnina, ki jo je BT za svoje zgradbe plačal Telerealu, pomeni približno 50 % njegove obdavčljive vrednosti v letu 2001, kljub dejstvu, da se mora obdavčljiva vrednost v glavnem nanašati na njegovo omrežje in ne na njegove zgradbe.
From that, Vtesse seems to derive the conclusion that BT's network is obviously undervalued.
Zdi se, da Vtesse na podlagi tega sklepa, da je omrežje BT ovrednoteno očitno prenizko.
This argument, however, is based on incorrect premises, since part of the property included in the Telereal deal are those that were separately valued at GBP 180 million.
Vendar ta trditev temelji na neustreznih objektih, saj je bil del premoženja, ki je bil vključen v posel s Telerealom, ločeno ovrednoten na 180 milijonov GBP.
BT's overall rateable value for the whole of United Kingdom at the time of the transaction was therefore equal to GBP 560 million for the network and linked properties plus GBP 180 million for the separately valued buildings, which gives GBP 740 million.
Skupna obdavčljiva vrednost BT za celotno Združeno kraljestvo je ob sklenitvi posla torej znašala 560 milijonov GBP za omrežje in z njim povezano premoženje ter 180 milijonov GBP za ločeno ovrednotene zgradbe, kar skupaj znese 740 milijonov GBP.
The rent of GBP 280 million paid by BT to Telereal amounts to 38 % of its overall rateable value.
Najemnina v višini 280 milijonov GBP, ki jo je BT plačal Telerealu, znaša 38 % njegove skupne obdavčljive vrednosti.
No useful conclusion can be drawn on the basis of this figure.
Iz tega zneska ni mogoče izpeljati nobenega uporabnega sklepa.
In any case, a methodology that consists in separating parts of BT's hereditament and valuing them in isolation seems questionable.
Metodologija, ki obsega ločevanje delov nepremičnin BT in njihovo ločeno vrednotenje, se v vsakem primeru zdi vprašljiva.
As confirmed by British case-law, the VOA must value the hereditaments of telecommunication operators as a whole.
Kot potrjuje britanska sodna praksa, mora VOA nepremičnine telekomunikacijskih operaterjev ovrednotiti kot celoto.
This rule is applied without discrimination to all operators.
To pravilo se brez razlik nanaša na vse operaterje.
It is an inherent feature in any type of property valuation that the market rent of a whole property is usually different from the sum of the market rents of parts of that property: it is often lower, it may also be higher in certain circumstances.
Značilnost, ki je neločljivo povezana z vrednotenjem katere koli vrste premoženja, je, da se tržna vrednost celotnega premoženja razlikuje od vsote tržnih najemnin za dele tega premoženja: pogosto je nižja, v nekaterih okoliščinah pa je lahko tudi višja.
It is therefore likely that the market rent of BT's property portfolio in isolation will be different from its value when included in BT's hereditament.
Zato se bo tržna najemnina ločenega premoženjskega portfelja BT po vsej verjetnosti razlikovala od njene vrednosti, če se vključi med nepremičnine BT.
There is thus no clear evidence that the R&E method would generally result in a lower rateable value than the rental method, or that the VOA, when applying the R&E method to BT and Kingston, erred and undervalued the rateable value of their hereditaments.
Zato ni jasnih dokazov, da bi po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov na splošno dobili nižjo obdavčljivo vrednost kot po metodi najemnine ali da je VOA z uporabo metode prejemkov in izdatkov pri BT in Kingstonu naredila napako ter prenizko ovrednotila obdavčljivo vrednost njunih nepremičnin.
Does the R&E method confer an advantage at the margin?
Ali metoda prejemkov in izdatkov prinaša mejno ugodnost?
It should be noted as a preliminary point that the question of marginal taxation, i.e. taxation on newly lit fibres, is relevant only as regards the rating assessment of BT but not as regards Kingston.
Uvodoma je treba poudariti, da je vprašanje mejne obdavčitve, tj. obdavčitve novo priključenih vlaken, pomembno samo, kar zadeva oceno davčne osnove BT, ne pa tudi, kar zadeva Kingston.
As stated in recital 22, Kingston owns a subsidiary, Torch Communications Ltd, which operates a fibre backbone network outside Kingston's local access network and which is valued on the basis of the rental method.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 22, je Kingston lastnik hčerinske družbe, Torch Communications Ltd., ki upravlja hrbtenično omrežje iz optičnih vlaken zunaj Kingstonovega omrežja za lokalni dostop in je ovrednotena na podlagi metode najemnine.
As a result, Torch Communications Ltd is fully taxed on newly lit fibre.
Posledično je družba Torch Communications Ltd v celoti obdavčena na novo priključena optična vlakna.
The R&E method is applied only to that part of Kingston's network which is essentially a local access network.
Metoda prejemkov in izdatkov se uporablja samo za tisti del omrežja Kingstona, ki je v glavnem omrežje za lokalni dostop.
As already explained, its hereditament is not subject to a revision mechanism.
Kot je bilo že razloženo, njegove nepremičnine niso predmet mehanizma popravkov.
That reflects the fact that, according to the UK authorities, no competitor has built networks in the Kingston upon Hull conurbation area and Kingston already had network coverage of almost 100 % in the area, so it did not extend its network.
To odraža dejstvo, da po navedbah organov Združenega kraljestva nobeden od konkurentov ni zgradil omrežij v somestju Kingston upon Hull, in Kingston je imel na tem območju že skoraj 100-odstotno omrežno pokritost, zato svojega omrežja ni razširil.
There was therefore no claim of material changes of circumstances which could have significantly altered the rateable value of Kingston's network.
Zato ni bilo nobene trditve o bistvenih spremembah okoliščin, ki bi lahko znatno spremenile obdavčljivo vrednost Kingstonovega omrežja.
The Commission accepts this argument and notes that no third party has claimed that Kingston was benefiting from any advantage at the marginal level.
Komisija to utemeljitev sprejema in navaja, da nobena od tretjih strank ni trdila, da je imel Kingston korist od kakršne koli ugodnosti na mejni ravni.